The Country You Have Never Seen Essays and Reviews by Joanna Russ

Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page i
THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page ii
Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies

Editor
David Seed
University of Liverpool
Editorial Board
MARK BOULD VERONICA HOLLINGER
University of the West of England Trent University
ROB LATHAM ROGER LUCKHURST
University of Iowa Birkbeck College, University of London
PATRICK PARRINDER ANDY SAWYER
University of Reading University of Liverpool
1. Robert Crossley Olaf Stapledon: Speaking for the Future
2. David Seed (ed.) Anticipations: Essays on Early Science Fiction and its Precursors
3. Jane L. Donawerth and Carol A. Kolmerten (eds) Utopian and Science Fiction by Women: Worlds
of Difference
4. Brian W. Aldiss The Detached Retina: Aspects of SF and Fantasy
5. Carol Farley Kessler Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Her Progress Toward Utopia, with Selected Writings
6. Patrick Parrinder Shadows of the Future: H. G. Wells, Science Fiction and Prophecy
7. I. F. Clarke (ed.) The Tale of the Next Great War, 1871–1914: Fictions of Future Warfare and of
Battles Still-to-Come
8. Joseph Conrad and Ford Madox Ford The Inheritors
9. Qingyun Wu Female Rule in Chinese and English Literary Utopias
10. John Clute Look at the Evidence: Essays and Reviews
11. Roger Luckhurst ‘The Angle Between Two Walls’: The Fiction of J. G. Ballard
12. I. F. Clarke (ed.) The Great War with Germany, 1890–1914: Fiction and Fantasies of the War-to-come
13. Franz Rottensteiner (ed.) View from Another Shore: European Science Fiction
14. Val Gough and Jill Rudd (eds) A Very Different Story: Studies in the Fiction of
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
15. Gary Westfahl The Mechanics of Wonder: The Creation of the Idea of Science Fiction
16. Gwyneth Jones Deconstructing the Starships
17. Patrick Parrinder (ed.) Learning from Other Worlds: Estrangement, Cognition and the Politics of
Science Fiction and Utopia
18. Jeanne Cortiel Demand My Writing: Joanna Russ, Feminism, Science Fiction
19. Chris Ferns Narrating Utopia: Ideology, Gender, Form in Utopian Literature
20. E. J. Smyth (ed.) Jules Verne: New Directions
21. Andy Sawyer and David Seed (eds) Speaking Science Fiction: Dialogues and Interpretations
22. Inez van der Spek Alien Plots: Female Subjectivity and the Divine in the Light of James Tiptree’s ‘A
Momentary Taste of Being’
23. S. T. Joshi Ramsey Campbell and Modern Horror Fiction
24. Mike Ashley The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the
Beginning to 1950
25. Warren G. Rochelle Communities of the Heart: The Rhetoric of Myth in the Fiction of Ursula K. Le Guin
26. S. T. Joshi A Dreamer and a Visionary: H. P. Lovecraft in His Time
27. Christopher Palmer Philip K. Dick: Exhilaration and Terror of the Postmodern
28. Charles E. Gannon Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Technomilitary
Agenda-setting in American and British Speculative Fiction
29. Peter Wright Attending Daedalus: Gene Wolfe, Artifice and the Reader
30. Mike Ashley Transformations: The Story of the Science-Fiction Magazines from 1950 to 1970
31. Joanna Russ The Country You Have Never Seen: Essays and Reviews
32. Robert Philmus Visions and Re-Visions: (Re)Constructing Science Fiction
33. Gene Wolf (edited and introduced by Peter Wright) Shadows of the New Sun: Wolfe on
Writing/Writers on Wolfe
34. Mike Ashley Gateways to Forever: The Story of the Science-Fiction Magazine from 1970–1980
Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page iii
THE COUNTRY
YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN
Essays and Reviews
JOANNA RUSS
Liverpool University Press

Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page iv
First published 2007 by

Liverpool University Press
4 Cambridge Street
Liverpool L69 7ZU
Copyright © 2007 Joanna Russ
The right of Joanna Russ to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data

A British Library CIP record is available
ISBN 978-0-85323-859-1 cased

978-0-85323-869-0 limp
Typeset by XL Publishing Services Ltd, Tiverton

Printed and bound in the European Union by Bell & Bain Ltd, Glasgow
Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page v
Contents
Reviews 1
Essays 191
Letters 247
Index of Books and Authors Reviewed 299

Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page vi
Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page 1
Reviews
REVIEWS 3
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, December 1966
Strange Signposts, An Anthology of the Fantastic. Ed. Roger Elwood and Sam
Moskowitz (Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966, 319 pp., $5.50)
Strange Signposts is a bottom-of-the barrel anthology. There are Big Names

in it, but don’t be tempted: most of them are represented by bad stories,
or excerpts from novels, or unfinished works. Mary Shelley’s “story,” for
instance, is an extremely disjointed 21-page condensation of an entire
novel, freed from any “extraneous dialogue, description or other unnec-
essary exposition.” They’re lucky she’s dead. H. G. Wells is represented by
a very early story – unfinished – and Edgar Rice Burroughs by a very late
one – unfinished. There is an unusually silly excerpt from a novel by Jules
Verne (which you can probably find in its entirety if you want to), and an
excerpt from a boy’s book that describes a helicopter (and then goes on
much too long), and early pieces by Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Bloch
that I sincerely hope are their worst. Two other Big Names are included:
Lovecraft (“The Whisperer in Darkness”) and Nathaniel Hawthorne
(“Rappacini’s Daughter”). The former is available in a paperback collection
of Lovecraft’s from Arkham House and the latter – how could they have
the face to include it? – is available just about everywhere; there is no
excuse for including it in anything again except a textbook. There are three
naive stories from writers of the ’30s, one so-so nineteenth-century piece
by Edgar Allan Poe that is two parts tedious philosophizing and politicizing
and one part real fun. (This story should be in the book and this one they
should have cut.) Mr. Elwood’s Introduction thoughtfully synopsizes most
of the stories, apparently without the slightest suspicion that he is letting
out Hawthorne’s whole secret and ruining Lovecraft’s very slow, very
effective build-up of suspense. Lucky they’re both dead, too.
A collection of obscure stories by Big Names might be worth it; or one
of unfindable stories or out-of-print works or previously uncollected
writers (I believe someone has just issued “The King in Yellow” in
paperback and a fairly expensive paperback collection of Lefanu); or even
of historical curiosities like Frank Reade’s helicopter (if they’re tolerable)
but this is none of them. It is not even a collection of predictions, as the
introduction suggests: Bloch’s story is sheer fantasy, Burroughs’ certainly
the same and Hawthorne’s hardly more. This is one of that damned flood
of anthologies that do nothing but cheapen the market, exasperate
reviewers and disappoint all but the most unsophisticated readers.
4 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, October 1967
The Warriors of the Day. James Blish (Lancer, 60¢). Stealer of Souls and Storm-
bringer. Michael Moorcock (Lancer, 60¢)
What is James Blish doing writing a book like The Warriors of Day? Mr. Blish
is a writer of excellent qualities: intelligence, logic, complexity, precision,
wide knowledge, intellectual rigor (and vigor) and a natural preference for
exact and telling detail. Warriors of Day is a bastard sword-and-sorcery cum
science fiction novel which resembles nothing so much as a mulligan stew
(a little bit of everything with explanations thrown in mostly ex post facto)
and it provides a beautiful display of all of Mr. Blish’s defects. Swash-
buckling demands a certain suspension of the critical sense and an inability
to make exact comparisons, neither of which qualities Mr. Blish can acquire
any more than he can cut off his own head. He is a speculative realist trying
to write a romantic novel; he cannot write it and he will not give it up, so
he goes on and on, clashing gears and grinding (my) teeth. Let me give an
example. When the hero, early in the story, walks from earth into another
world – in a sub-arctic forest – at night – Mr. Blish conveys the strangeness
of this experience by comparing it to a sudden passage from the Kodiak
forest path to – Times Square. This is a good, functional comparison and
it is absolutely anti-evocative. It is dead wrong. And the man does it again.
And again. Flowers in the strange world look like daisies but are
“cornflower blue” with an undertone of “electric green.” A beast resembles
something “in the Berlin zoo.” The motionlessness of a forest “could have
been measured with a micrometer … a still photograph.” And so on. When
the novel grows exotic or fantastic the style becomes unbelievably sloppy
and stereotyped (“ragged men hawked portions of green liquor cupped in
transparent skins”) and the word “wrong” is repeated innumerable times
in a half-desperate, half-annoyed effort to create a sense of the Strangeness
Of It All.
About the characterization I will only say that beyond Mr. Blish’s hero
you cannot go; he has no romantic insides because Mr. Blish is not able to
create that sort of character, and he has no realistic insides because they
would blow the rest of the book skyhigh; the result is an emotionless, invul-
nerable superman who is not even believable as a stereotype and whom
Mr. Blish instinctively makes detestable except when the action grows too
silly to be credible at all.
REVIEWS 5
I would not execrate Warriors of Day so much if I did not know what
James Blish can do when his heart is really in it. Either the typewriter
wrote this book, with Mr. Blish’s contribution nothing but occasional pieces
of sharp observation and a profound air of disgust, or there is an Anti-Blish
hidden in the real Blish’s gray matter, and that is a serious business indeed.
In Michael Moorcock’s Stealer of Souls and Stormbringer the work and the
writer are entirely at one. Vividly colored, sensuously evocative but always
a little vague, impressively single-minded and written with the utter
conviction that is probably the indispensable element in this genre, Mr.
Moorcock’s sword-and-sorcery romances are near the top of the mark. I
must add, though, for the benefit of those who came to sword-and-sorcery
through writers like Fritz Leiber or Jack Vance, that Mr. Moorcock’s
romances are also entirely innocent of either the slightest trace of humor
or what might tactfully be called the common operations of intelligence.
Elric, the protagonist, is a Byronic hero and nothing else: cynicism,
suffering, pride and loneliness, with devastating weakness paradoxically
linked to evil, unhuman strength. This kind of thing crumbles the moment
it allows you to think, but Mr. Moorcock never makes the mistake of giving
you anything to think about; there is no real geography here, no real
morality, no real characters and hardly even any real weather. All is
dissolved in a fiery emotional mist. Stormbringer, a complete novel, suffers
much more from the necessity of sustaining all this than does Stealer of
Souls, which is a collection of shorter pieces. Moreover, Stormbringer has to
make explicit the morality implicit in its predecessor, and this morality –
stupefyingly simple as it necessarily is – does excite the critical faculty just
a little and so threatens to weaken the romance. Also, Moorcockian orthog-
raphy tends to have a cumulatively unsettling effect. I swallowed Myyrrhn,
Imrryr, Yyrkoon, h’Haarshanns and D’a’rputna, but when I came to the
monster Quaolnargn, who “would answer to this name if called” (italics
mine), I began to speculate whether Mr. Moorcock was Welsh, whether
he was very Welsh, whether he had ever written for the Goon Show and
so on and so on, quite against the purposes of Elric, last Prince of Melnibone.
The verse-spells, too, are awful and should be cut. And “reed” should be
“rede” throughout.
Otherwise, for those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing
they will like very much. Myself, I find James Blish’s sense of fact a hundred
times more exciting – even in a bad book – than all Mr. Moorcock’s cloud-
capp’d towers and gorgeous palaces. These are splendid but ultimately
boring while fact is never either; fact is suggestive, various, complex and
free – in short, it’s fact – and this is the stuff with which writers like Mr.
Blish are trying, however erratically or imperfectly, to deal.
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, January 1968
Lord of Light. Roger Zelazny (Doubleday, $14.95). The Mind Parasites. Colin
Wilson (Arkham House, $4.00).
Roger Zelazny has been working at the problem of plotting a novel for
some time now. This Immortal had no real plot; Dream Master was essen-
tially an expanded novella. In his latest book, Lord of Light,1 he combines
seven episodes – some splendid, some merely very good – into what is not
quite a whole novel.
Lord of Light draws on classical Indian culture to recreate it on a future

colony of vanished Earth, where the first settlers (who deliberately made
up the culture after the Earthly model) play the roles of the gods and
goddesses of the Hindu pantheon, relying on their mutant psi powers and
considerable scientific gadgetry. Reincarnation is a reality, for personalities
are now transferred from body to artificially grown body, and the demon
Rakasha of Hindu legend is the original, energy-based life of the planet:
protean, immortal, and inimical to humankind. A banished god,
Siddhartha, Binder of Demons, and then (as a deliberate move against his
former colleagues and in imitation of Earthly history) a reviver of Buddhism
with himself as the Bodhisattva, sets out to fight the heavenly Estab-
lishment and thus bring back technical progress to the mass of mankind.
At the end of the book, Heaven (a geographically locatable city) is on its
way to ruin, and the hero – who has been many people in many bodies,
for the story spans generations – vanishes in the mysterious manner typical
of his religious and mythological prototypes.
None of the above gives more than a slight idea of the brilliance of Lord
of Light, of the manner in which the mimicked Hindu culture is both splen-
didly described and splendidly explained in the purest science fiction terms;
Zelazny can write like the Ramayana while discussing incendiary grenades
or the flush toilet. He can also recount events in Heaven in colloquialisms
that would embarrass every god and goddess in it, and rightly so. There is
even a physicist’s equivalent of Nirvana in something like a visible Van
Allen belt. The two worlds never conflict; they are always at one, and that
is a triumph.
1 Two sections of Lord of Light appeared in F&SF: “Dawn,” April 1967 and “Death
and the Executioner,” June 1967.
REVIEWS 7
But the book is still not a whole. Behind the gorgeously colored, woven
screen of the foreground there are glimpses of something else: the personal
stories of these inhabitants of Heaven, the actual colonization, the effect
upon human beings of immortality and the Aspects and Attributes of the
super-human, a real conflict of philosophies and attitudes. In one sense
it’s a tribute to the book that these begin to seem, after a while, more real
than the episodic adventures of the foreground. But they also begin to
seem more interesting, and when that happens the foreground – although
not exactly dull – becomes irrelevant. The beginning of Lord of Light
promises much more than the book ever delivers. Kali, the goddess of
destruction, on whom a great deal of motivation and plot depend, turns
out on close view to be neither particularly interesting nor particularly
believable; the great final battle with Heaven is disappointing and even
annoying because none of the personal or philosophical issues raised in
the course of the book is really settled. The mechanics of the plot are
satisfied; that’s all. Behind the exciting surface movement of the book is a
tale of outsiders fighting entrenched insiders and the story of X who loves
Y who loves Z who knows better. But Sam/Siddhartha/Buddha never rises
above the personal adventurousness of a kind of combative instinct, and
Kali, who is as beautiful as rain-clouds, whose feet are covered with blood,
and who wears a necklace made from the skulls of her children, whom
she has slain (in the original mythology), is only a tepidly conventional
bitch without even the force to be genuinely destructive, let alone the
“disfiguring and degenerative disease” that Sam calls her.
Will Zelazny ever write the inside stories of his stories? Can he?
Colin Wilson has produced, and Arkham House has published “a ‘Lovecraft
novel’” entitled The Mind Parasites. Devotees of HPL will be disappointed,
however, and so will everybody else; the Outsider’s latest is not in the
Lovecraft tradition but in the Boy’s Life Gee Whiz tradition and ought to
be called “Tom Swift and the Tsathogguans.” It is one of the worst books
I have ever read and very enjoyable, but then I did not have to pay for it.
An example:
He [the President of the United States] asked how we proposed to

stop the war.
“First of all, President, [sic] we want you to get on to the central
television agency and announce that you will be appearing in six
hours’ time to make an announcement that concerns the whole
world.”
“And you can tell me what it is?”
“I’m not yet sure. But I think it will concern the moon.”
I have an announcement to make too. It concerns a severe letter to

August Derleth (who seems to have suggested this book, possibly out of
exasperation), a gallon of kerosene, a match, a certain 222-page home-
cooked romance, and a copy of The Shadow Over Innsmouth to relax with
afterwards. Howard Phillips, you never looked better.
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, July 1968
The Best of the Best. Ed. Judith Merril (Delacorte, $6.50). Ashes, Ashes. René
Barjavel, trans. Damon Knight (Doubleday, $3.95). A Torrent of Faces. James
Blish and Norman L. Knight (Doubleday, $4.95)
The Best of the Best is a collection of stories chosen by the editor from her
previous anthologies, The Year’s Best S-F, from 1955 to 1960. At about the
fifth story, the Merrilian bent of these twenty-nine tales becomes clear –
they are human, “poignant,” chosen for feeling and not for gimmickry or
detachable ideas. The hard sciences are conspicuously absent. So is
philosophy, despite the editor’s introduction. At best this leads to stories
like J. G. Ballard’s “Prima Belladonna,” the first of his Vermilion Sands
stories I ever read. Is it the first ever published? When it appeared in the
second annual Best anthology this story seemed cryptic, but it vindicates
Miss Merril’s judgment retrospectively. It’s not only full-bodied and
perfectly clear; it’s probably one of the earliest future-society-taken-for-
granted-instead-of-explained stories and it still manages to look futuristic
and fresh. Human feeling and literary finish were also good guides in
selecting the star of the collection, Gummitch the superkitten (!), who
returns in “Space-Time for Springers” by Fritz Leiber. The less I say about
this story the less I will slobber over the page and make a nut of myself.
There are also two by Carol Emshwiller, Avram Davidson’s “Golem,” and
an early (?) Cordwainer Smith (“No, No. Not Rogov!”) which is only half
mad, and Damon Knight’s “Stranger Station.” These are all first-rate stories
and so are many of the others. But.
REVIEWS 9
The editor’s taste for “the human factor” – or a retrospective interest in

New Thing writers like Ballard and Emshwiller – or perhaps a reaction
against too much hardware in the field (both now and back then) – has
made The Best of the Best a surprisingly monotonous book. The stories are
good, but the tone is somehow the same all through. In her introduction
the editor notes that science fiction is “a field which degenerates … readily
into mere adventure story.” In avoiding “mere adventure story,” Miss
Merril sometimes chooses stories that degenerate into mere something-
else. Walter Miller’s “Hoofer,” for example, need not have been done as
s-f at all. It’s a re-doing of a good old American cliché, The Man Trapped
by Marriage, and it isn’t nearly as good as (say) Tennessee Williams’
“Moony’s Kid Don’t Cry.” Isaac Asimov’s “Dreaming Is a Private Thing” is
really about the movies. A story like Clifford Simak’s “Death in the House”
is moving, but it’s sixth in the book; by the time one gets to Theodore
Cogswell’s “You Know Willie” (next to last) a certain feeling of repetition
has begun to creep in. And a story like Fritz Leiber’s “Mariana” is too close
to untransformed fantasy.
Of course you needn’t read all twenty-nine stories at one go, as I did.
One of the best things about The Best is that it is fat, the way anthologies
used to be in the fifties. You could lose yourself in one for weeks. It’s a
good book to give to people who think they don’t like “science fiction.’ If
you read it yourself and start longing for missile trajectories and DNA, you
can buy another sort of anthology and dip into the two alternately, like a
Chinese dinner. If you haven’t been following the annual Merril Bests,
then by all means buy The Best of the Best and gnaw your way through it
solo.
Ashes, Ashes, translated by Damon Knight from the French of René Barjavel,
was originally published in France in 1943. Why on earth wasn’t it trans-
lated twenty years ago? Why on earth didn’t Doubleday pick something
more recent? There’s a certain frisson in reading about French cardboard
people instead of American cardboard people, and the satire of future
French society is pleasant for the first fifty pages. But once the book gets
serious the fun vanishes. The novel is anti-technological and reactionary,
the characters’ adventures are trite by now, and the Utopia at the end is
interesting only as pure cliché. Those passionately fond of High Camp may
enjoy this, though even they will boggle at some teeny impossibilities in
the text. Like the spontaneous generation of cholera microbes, for instance.
The translator has apparently enjoyed himself (when he could) and has
happily left the style of the novel French instead of trying to Americanize
it. For example: “The most beautiful of these statues … represented Intel-
ligence. She opened her arms … as if wishing to press to her breasts, each
a meter in radius, all these men whom she had inspired.” If only she had
inspired Barjavel to stick to satire or Doubleday to stick to sense!
A Torrent of Faces is written by James Blish and Norman L. Knight. This

makes for difficulty in constructing a compound name – it comes out either
Blight or Knish, which is unfair to the book. Let’s settle on B & K. The
novel is a picture of Utopia in the twenty-eighth century; the earth supports
one thousand billion people in reasonable comfort and contentment until
natural disaster destroys the world society. The technical details of feeding
and housing such vast numbers are the most fascinating things in the book;
the many air views of cities, reefs, oceans, and “biological preserves” are
superb. The authors’ preface mentions “pages of calculations … drawings
and diagrams [and] about thirty thousand words of notes” going back to
1948. One can believe it. The shapes and sizes of cities, methods of food
processing, family conventions, strange hotels, air travel, artificially bred
mermen (“Tritons”), sewage disposal, et cetera – these are all beautifully
presented. But the people are completely unreal. They aren’t simply
conventional or inconsistent or carelessly written. They are pretexts (most
of the dialogue is expository), and their human reactions are flatly
unbelievable. People in the mass are fine (a family convention in a “disaster
city” is the best part of the book), but individual people don’t even have
the reality that comes from a strongly felt stereotype. It’s as if everything
human in the book was conceived in a movie long shot and then half-
heartedly turned into a close-up. There are no overtones in the people or
the social system. Etiquette, travel, leisure, habits, attitudes are presented
as isolated facts, one at a time. They have been figured out logically but
never felt as a whole. For example, there are two bloodless romances, one
interracial (between human and Triton), but neither generates as much
tension as a decision about whether to have a cup of coffee or not. There
is also a psychotic member of the world government whose scheming isn’t
even necessary to the plot. There are times when A Torrent of Faces reads
like a particularly antiseptic juvenile.
What happened? Maybe those years of notes and diagrams have
something to do with it. This Utopia is so full as a place that there is no room
for the people. The individual Tritons are clean in body and mind, like Boy
Scouts or Sidney Poitier’s recent roles, but all mermen (we are told) are
inveterate shutterbugs. The latter is real. Disasters are real. Statistics are
real. Slime culture is real. The most dramatic scene in the book concerns
a large capsule of gallium and a lightly alloyed magnesium baffle. The most
memorable character is an asteroid called Flavia. Why should the human
beings be there at all? I would’ve been ten times as pleased with a fictional
history or fictional textbook. The material is fascinating in itself. Why follow
REVIEWS 11
the same silly characters all through? There’s a great deal to enjoy in the
book but it’s mixed with a lot of bland, exasperating lifelessness. Here’s a
Triton calming his hysterical Dryland sweetheart: “There are some facts
about Tritons that you don’t know, and they will almost certainly change
your outlook when you do.” And here is the panicky end of the Jones
convention: “… a surf of Joneses was already out on the roof of the city.
He could see several amoeboid batches of them, dim and sad in their
drooping finery, clumping together like slime molds on the flyport’s staging
apron; but most of them were invisible, masked by the trees … A falling
star, so immense that it might have been a falling sun, was streaking with
preternatural slowness over the city, lighting the whole landscape with a
garish blue-white glare.”
There’s plenty of both. Take your choice.
Black Easter. James Blish (Doubleday, $3.95). The Final Programme. Michael
Moorcock (Avon, 60c). The Still Small Voice of Trumpets. Lloyd Biggle
(Doubleday, $4.50). The Doomsday Men. Kenneth Bulmer (Doubleday,
$4.50). Flesh. Philip José Farmer (Doubleday, $3.95)
In the field of science fiction or fantasy, morality – when it enters a books

at all – is almost always either thoughtlessly liberal (you can’t judge other
cultures) or thoughtlessly illiberal (strong men must rule) or just plain
thoughtless (killing people is bad). James Blish has taken thought and has
written a novel called Black Easter. This book is about nothing less than the
problem of Evil, and it is brilliant. Says Yeats: “If God is good he is not God.
If God is God he is not good,”1 a dilemma for which there have been many
solutions. Blish chooses a heretical solution, the Manichean, and pushes
1 So I think, but can’t find it. Author’s note: The verse above is part of Job, a play
written by Archibald MacLeish. Eric Bentley (somewhere) calls the play “a
portentous magnum of chloroform.” I agree.
it to its logical outcome. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does

Evil exist? And if God is not omnipotent, if Evil has any kind of positive
existence, what may not happen? To go any further would give away part
of the book that a reader ought to have to himself; plot, in this book, is the
very embodiment of the theme and not merely a diversionary tactic. It is
as beautifully worked, as thorough and as complete a cul-de-sac as I have
seen in a long time. Blish’s gift for relentless, technical detail is at its best
here – more than that, his gift for portraying people who are passionately
fond of logic, knowledge, and technical detail. His equation of black magic
with science is no accident; it was Levi-Strauss (I believe) who called magic
a primitive form of science. And the motives here are the same. In an
author’s note, the author states that “the vast majority” of “novels, poems
and plays about magic and witchcraft … classify without exception as either
romantic or playful … I have never seen one which dealt with what real
sorcery actually had to be like if it existed.” Black Easter is not in the least
romantic, nor is it, God forbid, playful; in a world of such pedantic religion
and legalistic metaphysics, it is indeed better to curse God and die.
This horrifying novel may sound too special, as I have described it, but
the nerve it hits is in all of us. Westerners are all unconscious Manicheans;
perhaps most people everywhere are. One has only to remember the
common reaction to Eichmann’s trial (“a fiend in human form” as if the
soul and the crimes must somehow match in essence), or the usual reactions
of people to political opponents, to see that most of us believe – somewhere,
somehow – that Evil and Good both have a substantive being apart from
the historically accidental, particular acts that people do. Good and Evil are
conceived as nouns, not adjectives.
What one might call the orthodox Problem of Evil (how can an
omnipotent God permit it?) is a special case of a more general Problem of
Evil that exists in a widespread secular form, particularly in this country.
It is a conception of Good and Evil that severely handicaps Good, and is
perfectly exemplified by the commonplace, “Good guys finish last.” Good
is here conceived as restraint, inaction, adhering to the rules by not allowing
oneself to do X, Y or Z. Evil is the freedom to break the rules and do as one
pleases. Black Easter embodies this idea also. The “black” magician of the
book is free (within the limits of his craft) to commit whatever atrocities
he wishes; the “white” magician is constrained not to meddle, not even to
pray for the failure of the other’s schemes. A man not hampered by Good would
have shot the “black” magician in the back, and a good thing, too. For the
results of a self-limiting Good confronting an Evil which does not limit
itself would be altogether horrible without the intervention of a benev-
olent Deity – and that is where Black Easter turns on the reader and bites
him in the jugular, so to speak. It’s the theme of High Noon, which got out
REVIEWS 13
of its dilemma by changing the terms of the argument at the last moment.
Blish does not let you off so easily.
The book is dedicated to the memory of C. S. Lewis, which I find odd.
Not only does it knock That Hideous Strength into a cocked hat; Lewis is
more than a bit of a Manichean himself, and Black Easter, if not a reductio
ad absurdum of the Manichean view, is at least a reductio ad nauseam. To put
it another way, to C. S. Lewis the question, “What does it feel like to be a
demon?” is a conceivable question, while to Blish it is not. Black Easter
emphasizes the hideous boredom, the nothingness, the inhumanness of
Evil again and again. These are not qualities that can reside in a human
breast, and Blish does not try for a subjective view of his demons. They
remain, like avalanches or firestorms, outside the possibility of human
comprehension, though not human horror.
The Problem of Evil – how to combat it if one isn’t allowed its freedom
– is unanswerable within those terms. Eastern cosmologies which do not
feature a Creation separate from the Creator do not have the religious
problem; and any philosophy which subordinates the struggle of Good
against Evil to other matters does not encounter the secular version. If
what is important in life is to understand and share suffering (Buddhism,
in part) or to become part of the transcendental (Taoism in its original
form), then Good vs. Evil simply does not matter. Indeed, Lao Tzu is
supposed to have admonished Confucius that “All this talk of goodness
and duty … unnerves and irritates the hearer; nothing, indeed, could be
more destructive of his inner tranquillity.”2 When what matters is one’s
inner “unmixedness,” goodness and duty are irrelevant.
And indeed, the only solution for the Problem of Evil is to get outside
the terms of the problem. This is in fact what is happening. In Shaw’s Mis-
alliance, one character says to another, who demands “justice”:
A modest sort of demand isn’t it? Nobody ever had it since the world
began … Well, you’ve come to the wrong shop for it: you’ll get no
justice here: we don’t keep it. Human nature is what we stock.
When people begin talking this way, when one hears the word “values”
more often than “morals,” when books are published with titles like Life
Against Death, it is a sign that Good and Evil are being redefined. This is
happening both in the churches and in secular life. Interested readers may
try the early chapters of Sartre’s Saint Genet for a radical critique of tradi-
tional ideas about Evil and a radical redefinition of Evil.
2 Arthur Waley, Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China (Doubleday Anchor

Books, 1956), p. 14.
Black Easter is in itself a sign of this change. It is not only about an

Armageddon; it is also part of one. There is no room for me to mention
the superb things in this bare, powerful, immensely suggestive book. I will
adduce only a few: the “white” magician’s ironically innocent worryings
about the very problems the book embodies; a good magician, “Father
Anselm, a brusque engineer type who specialized in unclouding the minds
of politicians”; the extraordinarily un-angelic Celestial Princes, one of
whom vanishes with a roar; and best of all, Satan’s “petulant bass voice,
at once deep and mannered, like a homosexual actor’s.”
It’s a stunning book.
“Beyond Good and Evil” might be the subtitle of Michael Moorcock’s The
Final Programme, another book about Armageddon, but it is one that has
abandoned all the usual concerns for something that is beautiful and
strangely moving but very hard to describe. Moorcock dedicates his book
to (among others) “the Beatles, who are pointing the way through,” and
the novel can be best pictured by analogy with their music. The book is
not “savagely satirical,” as the blurb says, or “horribly funny.” Rather it
shows, like Beatles music, the use of pastiche as an artistic principle. All
the shopworn chichés are here: monster computers, mad scientists, incest
in the mode of Byron and Poe, people who live on pills and candy, mod
clothes, expensive cars, James Bond weapons, hermaphroditism, crowd-
mindlessness; you name it, the book’s got it. But these things are not the
subject of the book. They parade through it like blank-faced mannequins
in a fashion show. They are simple, flat, brightly colored objects that
Moorcock is using to make patterns about Something Else, like the Beatles
song that consists almost entirely of the words, “You say goodbye/And I
say hello.” There is the same avoidance of dynamics: in one case always
using the voice mezzo-forte, in the other pacing each scene so that suspense
or development are entirely eliminated. There is the same deliberate
flatness of tone, the same balancing just this side of satire, the same absence
of emotional expressiveness that becomes – somehow – a positive force.
If I tell you that fully one-third of the novel is given over to describing
people’s clothes, you will laugh at me; yet it’s true. And if I say that the
central character’s motives change constantly and have nothing to do with
the plot, you’ll be put off; but that’s true, too. And if I add that the plot
itself is made up of dead-ends, inconsistencies, irrelevancies and
unexplained events, and that all this is beautiful, exciting, and moving,
you won’t believe me. But it’s true.
Moorcock has apparently decided to treat characters and plot on an equal
footing with every other element of the book; the result is a kind of literary
Cubism: a shifting, unstable, shallow foreground in which every element
REVIEWS 15
is constantly entering into new associations with every other element.

It is very pleasant to be able to review Programme and Black Easter at the
same time. Both are impressive achievements. Black Easter has luckily been
released as general fiction by Doubleday; unhappily Programme (which
should have been given the same treatment) has been put out as science
fiction, which it is not. To call it fantasy would be inaccurate also; let me
just close by noting that the only sticky patch in it is a discussion that almost
deviates into sense (pp. 109–111), that the cover is abominable, and that
the jacket blurbs are, as usual, totally misleading.
After such heights, it’s hard to come down to the run-of-the-mill. Lloyd
Biggle’s The Still Small Voice of Trumpets is a good example of a bad trend –
the short story blown up into a novel. I remember the short story as a
small, graceful solution to a small, graceful problem. The transition to novel
length has necessitated a great deal of padding, which shows. There are a
few interesting points about music and a plot that is silly and hard to follow,
not that such a feat is absolutely necessary. The book is innocuous and
mildly analgesic, which is (I suppose) what this sort of book is for. It has
the kind of respectable cover that Michael Moorcock’s book should have
had.
The Doomsday Men by Kenneth Bulmer is more pretentious and fails in

proportion. There are sinful orgies (well, sort of) and thrill-killing and a
general air of dissolute city living that recalls innumerable detective movies
in which the hero Cleans Up City Hall. There is an interesting gadget, a
device by which one person can read another’s memories right after the
second person’s death, but Bulmer does not explore what such a gadget
would imply about the state of medicine and psychology (at least) or what
such advanced science would mean for sociology, city planning, and the
whole state of society. It’s another case of extrapolating only one aspect
of the present and ignoring everything else. There is a stream-of-
consciousness page (called in its entirety “Chapter Five”) which should
have been not only cut out but also burned. The writing generally tends
to get pretty bad in moments of stress. For example:
Thickly, Durlston spoke, the words dropping like curdled blood. “It’s
a radio trigger! And they’re not going to have the chance to set it off!
The Shield is there to protect me – me!” … he could not control the
spittle that dribbled from the corner of his lax mouth – but his
forefinger tightened on the trigger – tightened – the narrow red
creases disappeared from the knuckle – the blood flowed away – the
whiteness of marbled death showed – (p. 201)
The plot ends with a sudden leap into the incredible, a real breach of
contract between reader and writer.
Philip José Farmer’s Flesh is “a revised and expanded version of a novel by

the same name first published by Galaxy Publishing Corp.” The original
copyright is 1960. It is my uninformed, outsider’s opinion that the revision
and expansion have been minimal and that the book might have been very
good if more time had been spent on it. It is a satire (part of the time), an
adventure story (part of the time), a celebration of primal appetites (ditto)
and a primitive society created out of whole cloth along the lines of Frazer’s
Golden Bough (likewise). Farmer seems never to have settled on a consistent
attitude toward his material; none of the versions of the book listed above
manages to mesh with any of the others. Most promising but worst
achieved is the celebration of primal appetites (eating and sex) – arch when
it should be coarse and coyly evasive when it should be specific. The book
keeps heading into erotic scenes and shying off at the last minute. And
some very unpretty things lie under the “comic” surface: mass castration,
death by rape, and the ripping apart of children, to name a few. The book
gives the impression of a naturally austere, cultivated and somewhat
morbid sensibility trying to portray Rabelaisian simplicity and heartiness
with all the forced go of an unhappy conventioneer. There are vivid flashes
of imagination that no one but Philip Farmer could even come near, but
even so, it isn’t a good book. It does his reputation a particular disservice
because it could have been one. Readers especially interested in Farmer
can simply consider it early Farmer and read it as such. Others will probably
wish it were less uneven and confused.
REVIEWS 17
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, April 1969
Pavane. Keith Roberts (Doubleday, $4.95). The Age of the Pussyfoot. Frederik Pohl
(Trident, $4.95). The Santaroga Barrier (Berkley, 75¢). Transplant. Margaret
Jones (Stein and Day, $5.95). Omar.Wilfrid Blunt (Doubleday, $3.95)
Unlike the little girl with the curl, science fiction is usually neither very,
very good nor very, very horrid. Moreover, as it has in other fields, the
vocabulary of praise has become so overblown that a simple “good” means,
more often than not, “don’t bother,” while “brilliant – magnificent –
unequalled” means only that the book in question won’t kill you.
A good book from Doubleday is Pavane by Keith Roberts, about whom
a reader ought to know more than is provided on the dust jacket. Keith
Roberts is an Englishman and was associate editor with Science Fantasy, but
what Doubleday does not mention – and what I do not therefore know –
is whether Pavane is Mr. Roberts’ first book or not. There are weaknesses
and limitations in the book that mean little if the writer is simply inexpe-
rienced but a good deal more if he’s not; and there is a fine imagination
that would be a respectable achievement for an experienced writer, but is
a much greater promise for a beginner.
Pavane is an alternate-universe book: in 1588 Queen Elizabeth I was
assassinated; therefore Spain conquered England, Protestantism was
destroyed in Northern Europe, and Europe and the New World remained
under the control of a repressive Church. Mr. Roberts does not make the
mistake of confounding the sixteenth century with the twelfth, or of seeing
a slowly developing society as static; one of the best ideas in the book is
that technological progress, although slowed down, has not disappeared.
Twentieth-century England has steam locomotives (eighty horsepower),
a middle class, the typewriter (a rare luxury), Zeiss binoculars, primitive
radio, and a social system that is not just an excuse for romance, sadism,
or adventurous nonsense. The author’s feeling for historical period is
impressive, perhaps not in every technological detail (internal combustion,
yes; nylons, no) but certainly in his unshakable assumption that leather
clothes and porridge do not an idiot make, and in the extraordinary, half-
expressed melancholy of a society that became static after the Renaissance.
It is a kind of Paradise Lost.
The alternate-universe story is subject to a particular weakness: the
pleasure of feeling morally daring, of being “ahead” of a purposely
benighted society. Mr. Roberts doesn’t entirely avoid this. In general,
though, his weaknesses (and he has them) only mar details here and there;
they don’t cut deep enough to hurt the story. Pavane is a real, detailed, self-
contained world, affecting and convincing. To an Englishman who is
familiar with every town, every road, every seacoast, every forest (or
vanished forest) in the book, it must be a poignant novel indeed.
Moreover, Keith Roberts is a real writer. By this I mean that he dwells
on things for their own sakes, that he doesn’t conceive of the details of his
book as merely a means to get from point A to point B with as little sweat
as possible (and with some superficially attractive tinsel thrown in). One
feels that he would discard his plot instantly if the characters and the world
decided to develop in some other direction; it is this risk that makes a book
live. This is worth mentioning in a field that seems to conceive “good
writing” (or “style”) as either an irritating distraction or a mysterious gift
before which we ought to be simultaneously awed and a little contemp-
tuous. Style is respect for real life. The characters in Pavane have visions –
real visions – of things like fairies – real fairies – and the visions turn out
to be true. I don’t approve of or find likely the view that we are only instru-
ments of a Higher Purpose, but Keith Roberts believes it. He does not believe
it polemically, which would kill it; he presents it poetically, as a real
experience. Pavane has the suggestive power science fiction so often lacks;
the most important points in the book are not the most important points
of the plot, and at its best, the novel has that lyrical meaning that is so easy
to feel and so hard to explain. “Do not grieve for the deaths of stones,” says
a father to his son (p. 278), and here is an adolescent fisher girl, of minor
importance to the plot but of major importance to herself:
Sometimes then the headlands would seem to sway gently and roll
like the sea, dizzying. Becky would squat and rub her arms and shiver,
wait for the spells to pass and worry about death … (p. 102)
Frederik Pohl’s The Age of the Pussyfoot is likely to suffer in this review, not
because I think it bad, but because there is not much inspiring to say about
its goodness. The book has one rare quality, what might be called Not
Shoving Your Nose In It; Mr. Pohl assumes a certain intelligence in his
readers and forbears giving them careful analyses of his future world when
a glancing detail will do. It is good, for a change, to be treated as an adult
by an adult. The book is intelligent, quite funny, stuffed full of charming
things, fast-moving and decently predictive; it is probably better than 99
percent of everything else written in the field this year. Mr. Pohl has points
to make and he makes them, sometimes gracefully, sometimes with genuine
wit, a few times a little awkwardly (but I’m willing to blame his editors).
You may even forget, while you are reading the book, that the book is dead.
REVIEWS 19
Perhaps this shouldn’t be held against the author. Satire always suffers
(or gains) from the intrusive author, and what may be at fault here is that
the author isn’t intrusive enough; one of the pleasantest moments in the
book (one feels a positive glow of affection for Mr. Pohl) is the last two
sentences, in which the author sticks his head through the page and waves
at you. Pussyfoot is polished, professional, straightforward, and all on the
surface. It even has detachable ideas in it, about which you can argue
afterward. (Some people will think this makes the book profound,
though to my mind what makes a book profound is the undetachability of
its ideas – you spend much time trying to define them before you even
reach the stage of being able to argue about them.) Pussyfoot is one of the
best disposable books I have seen in a long time and good enough so that
I wish Mr. Pohl had let himself go all the way. One example: at the end of
Chapter 16 is a grim version of Goldilocks that turns from melodramatic
horror to earnest school lesson to dramatic performance. For a moment
something follows the laws of its own quirky nature, and that damned plot
can wait.
The novel seems to me to have had more impact at its magazine publi-
cation in 1965 than it does today, the penalty of writing topical, i.e.
disposable novels. There are few flaws once you accept the major premise
that the book is comfortably dead: Mr. Pohl suggests in his Afterword that
the book ought to be set one century in the future and not several, and he
is right. There is also an unexplained difficulty with the indoctrination of
the hero, Forrester, who has died in our age and is revived in the future.
(Why do science-fiction authors always call characters by their last names?)
If he has learned the – presumably – changed language, why is it so hard
to teach him the elementary facts of social life? Readers will also note that,
although people may be frozen and unfrozen at will, though we may travel
to Sirius, men will still earn more money than women and that free enter-
prise and the suburban housewife will go on forever.
Frank Herbert is an interesting writer, or perhaps I should say an inter-

esting phenomenon, for both Dune and The Santaroga Barrier are not
first-rate books, but carefully worked up third-rate ones. The exhaustive
care with which the working up is done deserves praise, but many a reader
of Dune has thought himself responding to the profundity of an elemental
vision of life when what really got him was a combination of reckless
exoticism, flamboyantly impossible social conditions, sheer thoroughness,
and what I can most politely call megalomania. The Santaroga Barrier, while
not a good book, has the quality that amateur acting companies sometimes
achieve: a kind of evenness, so that while nothing is really good or striking,
nothing shows anything else up. Dune fans will be disappointed.
Santaroga is the story of a “consciousness fuel” (a consciousness-

expanding drug) seen from a conservative point of view. That is, the drug
has created a conservative, yet dangerous, community – the author makes
his drug quite unlike LSD, on purpose. The book is full of nineteenth-
century hotel lobbies, thirty-year-old cars, waitresses, crusty doctors – what
might be called American Nostalgic. The oddity of the novel is in marrying
this kind of “Spartan” community (Mr. Herbert’s description) to a
consciousness-expanding drug. What power the novel has is the power of
exhaustive detail; there is, for example, so much food in the book (usually
the community’s cheese, which is sometimes tangy and sometimes smooth
and sometimes rich and sometime all three at once) that you read it after
dinner at your peril. The food is not described well, but it is there in heaps;
similarly the people, though they do pages and pages of accurately
commonplace things, are pure cardboard, and the hero’s psychedelic
experiences compel me to assume that Mr. Herbert has neither experience
in the field nor imagination enough to fake it. Here is the hero, thinking
about his sweetheart and another character:
Jenny, he thought. Jenny … Jenny … (p. 16) … Jenny … Jenny … (same

page, five paragraphs later.) Dasein moved down the steps. Piaget …
Piaget … (p. 65) … a fiery pain through his shoulder. Piaget … Piaget
… (p. 66)
After a good deal of unnecessary mystification and travelling into the

Santaroga Valley and out of the Santaroga Valley, for no apparent reason
except to rack up pages, the novel ends where a good novel would begin.
There are interesting glimpses of behind-the-scenes Santaroga, which Mr.
Herbert does not develop. The book has the doubtful virtue of persuading
you on every page that although nothing worthwhile is happening at
present, something surely will if you only go on reading. It also has the air
of treating its materials seriously, although the problems it broaches are
never explored or elaborated on. What is reality? Are socially shared
delusions normal? Don’t ask Mr. Herbert. Interested parties can read
Synthajoy, a book with the same plot (psychological entrapment) and
exactly the same twist at the end, to see how even a flawed novel can
attempt to provide answers to questions and not just display the questions
triumphantly on the last page but one.
When the British are bad, they are awful. Transplant by Margaret Jones is
about a dying painter who has his head cut off and stuck on someone else’s
body, and this other guy likes sex, see, but this poor ascetic guy just wants
to paint and he’s abnormal because he likes it and his wife won’t even look
at him because she thinks he’s dead, so –
REVIEWS 21
Actually the book is far less coherent than the above. As far as I can
make out, it’s about adultery and consequent guilt feelings, or poetic justice
(the painter’s paintings are thrown into a river by the tart he’s keeping just
for brutish sex), but the medical – not to say, scientific – not to say, simply,
logical – fallacies in the book beggar description. Miss Jones can write
convincing, realistic, single scenes, but she cannot make them add up to
anything, so that the utter idiocy of the whole proceeding becomes
apparent only gradually. She ought to get out of science fiction and write
ordinary novels; there is a lot of gritty, nasty, sordid, dull, English (?) life
(?) in the book, including a view of sex that makes the worst American
squalor look glamorous. After her third or fourth novel, Miss Jones might
be able to manage a whole book and it might even be worth reading, but
publishing Transplant is stupid at best, and at worst, downright insulting.
Omar by Wilfrid Blunt is “A fantasy for animal lovers.” It is pleasant,

charming and slight. It is a fantasy in the old-fashioned sense (say, talking
badgers) and if your sugar tolerance is low, stay away. I liked it.
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, August 1969
The Sword Swallower. Ron Goulart (Doubleday, $4.50). The Phoenix and the
Mirror. Avram Davidson (Doubleday, $4.95). Small Changes. Hal Clement
(Doubleday, $4.95). The Best SF Stories from New Worlds #2. Poul Anderson
(Berkley, 60¢). 7 Conquests. Poul Anderson (Macmillan, $4.95)
Southern California wackiness consists not only of odd-ball phenomena but

also in the attitude you take toward them; more than matter-of-factness or
casual acceptance, it’s simply the lack of realization that anything odd is
going on. Ron Goulart is the only science fiction writer I know about who
writes from this point of view – in fact, he hardly seems to write from any
other – and The Sword Swallower is a running fire of dead-pan jokes of this
peculiarly Forest Lawn kind. (The back jacket says Mr. Goulart spent his
first twenty years in Berkeley, so maybe it’s just California.) The tone of the
novel resembles that of Mr. Goulart’s Max Kearny stories and the plot (to
speak heavy-handedly of what doesn’t, after all, matter much in a comedy
like this) sprawls and straggles over a planet-wide cemetery which is
complete with ten-story neon wreaths, The Eternal Sleep Coffee Shop, etc.
Through this world of mad monologists travels a tired, realistic, decent,
unsurprisable government agent who has been hybridized with Plastic Man.
It is a world of flower children, leftists, rightists, retired Wing Commanders,
geriatric hotelees, incompetent girl spies, protest singers, tomb-robbers and
other all-too-credibles. A shorter version of the novel was first published in
this magazine in 1967; it was funny then and is funny now, although it
spirals out of control once in a while and the constant whimsy tends to
dematerialize not only the action (which hardly matters) but also the
characters and situations. Like mad Ophelia, the book turns all to favor and
to prettiness. Sometimes the essential innocence of the characters is
refreshing, but sometimes Mr. Goulart looks like a man who has wandered
observantly through Gehenna and decided it would make a great place for
a wienie stand. The self-righteous and vicious young, the callous old, middle-
aged liberals with massive guilt complexes, ineffectual innocents, rigidified
right wingers – if this were a serious book, the hero would have killed himself
on the last page, only the reader would have anticipated him.
As it is, the whimsy is unflagging (or relentless, depending on your
taste), detail proliferates insanely, and the plot serves well enough, though
there are important weak points (e.g. would you send someone you know
can change appearance at will out into a fake jungle to be hunted?) I found
it a very funny book. For example:
“I guess you spies get a lot,” said Alberto … “The way you’re always
working with these girl agents … Some of these girl agents aren’t
exactly zoftig but even a wisp of a girl agent is okay now and then if
you want to change your luck. Sure, you get cooped up with a slender
girl spy you can get just as horny as if it was a nice hefty broad. I
figure.”
Sometimes you get cooped up with a slender, insane Goulart novel and
it’s okay too.
Avram Davidson’s The Phoenix and the Mirror is an oddly dragging,

sometimes fascinating book that ought to be a classic romance and is not.
Mr. Davidson has created an entirely new never-world, that of Vergilian
Rome as seen in medieval legends, a “backward projection of medievalism”
in which the ancient world becomes half Dark Ages and wholly strange,
REVIEWS 23
and Vergil not a poet but a sorcerer. The background is extremely well
realized, so much so that I doubt whether one reader in twenty will
recognize the amount of research that has gone into it – I doubt if I recognize
this myself. The novel is not simply an all-out fantasy world or an excuse
for adventures; the magic in it is developed with awesome logic, and one
of the climaxes of the book concerns the making of a mirror – constructing
a furnace, crushing the ore, making the crucibles, and so on. Either you
follow this patiently or you deserve to be shut up in a television set and
forced to read Marvel comics until your brain turns to oatmeal. There are
wonderful details: the mineral kingdom alone includes the terebolim, the
male and female firestones, whose mating produces an unquenchable
conflagration, and the petromorphs, whose stony and venomous jaws
love to crunch the coals of fires. Except for the hunting scene, which
seems to have been introduced merely to show off too much medieval lore,
none of this stuff is dull and most of it is first-rate. But something has gone
wrong.
I thought at first to look for the difficulty in the characters, and these
are indeed types – the Beautiful Maiden, the Bluff Friend, the Ambitious
Bitch, the Gentle Monster, the Loyal Gutter Urchin – but typing has never
been a bad thing in itself. In fact, the characters in the novel are not only
vividly conceived, but also almost always there is an extra twist – realistic
or paradoxical or suddenly matter-of-fact – that makes them real people.
It is all the more distressing to see these real people somehow forced into
the role of puppets and made to populate a book that drags in spite of its
splendid exoticism and the solidity of its background.
Perhaps the problem is in the plot. The book does not really have a plot,
that is, an action in which self-motivated characters come into conflict with
each other or something else through the pursuit of things they really want.
What it has instead is an intrigue that never quite comes off (sometimes
developments are too slow, sometimes too fast, often just arbitrary) and
an intrigue needs a diabolus ex machina. One of the characters is pressed
into service for this and is promptly ruined, although she has all sorts of
potential (as do the others) for doing other things, if only it weren’t for
that damned plot. Mr. Davidson gives glimpses of the characters, looking
remarkably lifelike; and then episodes of exotic action or description; and
then the characters again, still looking lifelike but now subtly out of place;
and each time the characters reappear they are more out of place. The
denouement is like one of Dickens’ worst novels, where you find out at
the end that people have all sorts of complicated relationships with each
other and wonder why you should care or bother. The logical solution is
not a dramatic solution, and what ought to have prepared for it, not only
looked like an excrescence before; it still is one.
Perhaps Mr. Davidson is trying to imitate the stylization-cum-actuality

of medieval romances, but his characters are much too real for this arbitrary
playing around with their emotions. For example (the worst), the hero,
having gotten half-way into a mystery – through a gimmick – must now
have a motive to get all the way in. So he falls in love at first sight with
the Beautiful Maiden, glimpsed in the magic mirror. A Vergil who got into
his adventure through curiosity, or professional pride, or desire for money,
would be much easier to take. The realism of the book does not jibe with
many of the plot machinations. For one thing, there is some very modern
Monday-morning quarterbacking about science (sort of!), music, and
poetry. There is also an intelligence at work here, a modern, skeptical, cool,
rather tired mind which is far more interesting than the ostensible romance
of the main action.
The novel appeared in serial form, badly shredded, several years ago.
Those who were puzzled by it then certainly ought to read it now. If it
were a worse book, it would be more unified, but it would also be a worse
book, and a half a loaf can be very welcome, even when it’s frustrating, as
this is.
Small Changes by Hal Clement, The Best SF Stories from New Worlds #2 and 7
Conquests by Poul Anderson are as different as short-story collections can
possibly be.
“Old-fashioned” is a derogatory term nowadays, but it is the best single
word for Small Changes – with the emphasis on “fashioned.” Mr. Clement’s
world is that of homo faber and within its confines the stories are nearly
flawless. All but one of the nine tales have been published before and are
probably familiar to readers of the magazines. Without exception they are
leisurely, extremely carefully done, and ingenious. Mr. Clement is in love
with the laws of basic physics, and they are in love with him right back;
in no other set of stories that I remember do the words “angular
momentum” carry quite so much of a thrill. Mr. Clement’s scientific
ingenuity and accuracy have been praised before, but I would like to point
out also that his thorough, careful, somewhat pedestrian style restores the
astonishment to extremes of heat and cold, and that two stories (“Halo”
and “The Foundling Stars”) are fascinated by huge, slow-living, low-
temperature organisms whose eyeblink (if they had eyes) would consume
most of a human lifetime. Five of the nine stories are sort-of detective tales
but Mr. Clement does not ask you to outguess him, nor does he play on
suspense of the Omigod-I’m-dying or heave-and-sweat school. In
“Uncommon Sense” (my favorite) he even telegraphs the ending – the
hero survived – so that a reader can forget the what and concentrate on
the how, which is amply rewarding.
REVIEWS 25
Mr. Clement’s world is certainly limited (hardly anything in these stories

could exist in non-s.f. terms), but it’s well worth the limitations. The
characters are remarkably sane, calm people; there is a convention in
science fiction of calling characters by their last names, and in this book
alone (of all those I’ve read) does that convention seem entirely natural
and appropriate. In “Trojan Fall” and “Fireproof” Mr. Clement uses central
characters who are outside his range – a criminal and a spy – and the stories
suffer accordingly. The other tales are slow to get started, exhaustive in
detail, very quiet, almost completely devoid of social or psychological
interest, and sometimes devoid of plot except for the will-this-factory-run
sort. When people talk about “pure” science fiction of the “good old days,”
this is what they mean. Unluckily the good old days saw as little of this as
we do; luckily Hal Clement is around now.
At least a week should intervene between reading Hal Clement and New
Worlds #2, or the reader will be in danger of getting the cosmic bends. Not
only is this grab-bag made up half of non-s.f.; what there is, is in another
universe. What is most striking about the stories as a group is their sleaziness
– not only their accidental sleaziness, but also a deliberate and systematic
use of pastiche, fragmentation, little bits from popular magazines, and a
sort of interested shuffling of avant-garde devices which are themselves
parodies or derivatives of other straight writing. Some of this book is very
good and some of it is awful, but none of it is solid.
Among the stories are three conventional and not particularly good s.f.
stories based on ideas that, to put it politely, have lost their bloom: “The
Transfinite Choice,” “The Total Experience Kick,” and “The Singular Quest
of Martin Borg.” There is an absolute howler called “The Countenance.”
On the deliberately sleazy side is an essence-of-Ballard story (“You: Coma:
Marilyn Monroe”) in which J. G. Ballard strips the Ballardian props down
to the bare minimum and sets them drifting moodily past each other
without even a pretext at continuity. Brian Aldiss’s “Another Little Boy”
creates a world similar to that of Michael Moorcock’s The Final Programme
(although more intelligibly), the common modern fantasy of an amoral,
polymorphous-perverse existence in which death, although it exists, is
either not really painful – to oneself – or not bothered about. “The Pleasure
Garden of Felipe Sagittarius,” in which the astute may discover an even
stronger resemblance to The Final Programme, is another of the same breed,
though to my taste a more evocative and less obvious piece. There are two
decent science fiction stories by John Sladek and Kit Reed, both parodic,
and three excellent non-stories by Tom Disch, also parodic, which contain
such gems of non-information as “When the ship sank, with all hands on
deck, the captain went down with it. And so on.” In short, the usual charac-
teristics of avant-garde writing outside science fiction. What vexes people

who don’t like this sort of thing seems to be that although the stories are
not exactly meant to be funny, they are nonetheless stuffed full of the
traditional devices of comedy: repetition, mechanism, discontinuity, incon-
gruity, surprise, exaggeration, lack of explanation and general bizarrerie.
I don’t mind this kind of work’s being bizarre (which it is) or incompre-
hensible (which it is only sometimes) or sleep-walker-cruel (which I rather
like). What bothers me is that this kind of writing is basically parasitic on
“straight” writing and hence very quickly exhausted. It is also best when
it is shortest. The last story in the book, Roger Zelazny’s “For a Breath I
Tarry” is another kettle of fish. It works by sheer surface razzle-dazzle, as
I suspect all Mr. Zelazny’s writing does. It is a very silly and totally irresistible
tale in which God, Satan, Adam, Eve and the Ancient Mariner all appear
under impenetrable pseudonyms, disguised as computers. It triumphantly
manages all the mythical significance, the quasi-religious larger-than-
lifeness that Mr. Zelazny has been trying to put into everything else lately
(or was it before?) If the story hasn’t done so already, it will undoubtedly
win the Hugo, the Nebula, the Comet, the Nova, the Pebble, and every-
thing else anybody chooses to toss at it.
7 Conquests is a collection of seven previously published stories by Poul

Anderson about war (some indirectly so), and there is a succinct and
sensible Foreword on the matter which is very welcome in an age of shrill
unanimity on the Left and a scarcity of brains on the Right. Let me make
it clear from the outset that I don’t like adventure stories or war stories per
se. It seems to me that they are severely limited forms; that is, one laser
duel is like another laser duel and one chase like another chase, unless you
pull a Hatchplot1 and set your characters to chasing each other over Mount
Rushmore and shooting their lasers while hanging by their toes from Teddy
Roosevelt’s eyebrows. The book includes a good deal of material that
sneaked in while the author was asleep (“Lois, she of the fire-colored hair
and violet eyes”) and some that could appear outside science fiction with
almost no alteration (“The trouble is these critters won’t know about Carl
Bailey, who collected antique jazz tapes, and played a rough game of poker,
and had D.S.M. and a gimpy leg from rescuing three boys whose patroller
crashed on Venus.”) The stories are fast and hard but they are often jerry-
built, the bad material apparently coming in when Mr. Anderson has
certain givens to set up and doesn’t care how he does it. The curious result
is that many of these stories – though they are all thoughtful and most
1 MAD magazine’s name for Hitchcock.

REVIEWS 27
pack a genuine emotional punch – start out as if they were going to be the
worst sort of schlock. “Wildcat,” one of the best and a picture of the Jurassic
that I won’t easily forget, begins as if it were going to be pure cliché: rough,
tough, womanless men in an isolated jungle. It ends as something
altogether different. The book is full of flat and conventional people who
exist for the sake of the plot and not the other way round. They ought not
to be more real but less so; there is no reason to learn about the psycho-
logical complexities of a man when it’s the situation he’s in that matters.
And when Mr. Anderson reaches for images of the good life he somehow
comes up with things that are frankly incredible. I wouldn’t worry this
point if the stories were bad, but when the author turns (with apparent
relief) from the manly men and the lady with the violet hair and fire-
colored eyes, he can be pointed, poignant, careful, wise, even funny –
“License” casually mentions the American Freebooters’ Laborunion and
the Criminal Industries Organization, for one. And he recognizes, under-
stands, and takes into account experiences that the authors in the New
Worlds don’t even know exist. Anyone who thinks I am talking about
simple-minded patrioteering ought to read “Kings Who Die,” a story that
leads you right into a patriotic mess and leaves you there. One comparison:
Conquests is a grim, low-keyed, joyless, sometimes dreary book (not first-
rate Anderson) which stuck with me and made me think – surprisingly,
when you consider some of those cardboard personages. Zelazny’s “For a
Breath I Tarry” is an emotional orgy that made me cry, but I didn’t respect
the story for making me cry or like myself the better for it.
7 Conquests also contains “Cold Victory,” “Inside Straight,” “Details,” and
“Strange Bedfellows.”
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, September 1969
The Prometheus Project: Mankind’s Search for Long-Range Goals. Gerald

Feinberg (Doubleday, $4.95). Let the Fire Fall. Kate Wilhelm (Doubleday,
$4.95). World’s Best Science Fiction: 1968 (Ace, 60¢). The Last Starship from
Earth. John Boyd (Berkley, 75¢). The Da Vinci Machine. Earl Conrad (Fleet
Press, $5.95)
Of the making of many books there is no end. And they are all published,
too. And the people cried out, saying: Give us a sign, we would have a sign.
So Doubleday gave them a sign.
Virtual immortality, space travel, the extension of consciousness,
artificial intelligence – topics like these have been explored in science fiction
for years. The Prometheus Project: Mankind’s Search for Long-Range Goals by
Gerald Feinberg adds nothing to the exploration but an appalling naiveté.
Prometheus is a stupid book, stupid beyond description, shallow beyond
bearing, and as devoid of subtlety as it is of logic. To say that Dr. Feinberg
is not equal to his subject is nothing; none of us is equal to the question
of whether mankind ought to have conscious, long-range goals and what
these ought to be, but some of us at least are troubled by the doubts that
intelligence brings. Some of us at least have an inkling of the difficulties
involved, let alone the agonizing choices one would have to make, let alone
the problems of even defining the subject. Prometheus is sillier than the
worst Flying Saucer scare book; it is written on the village-atheist level and
riddled with inconsistencies; and Dr. Feinberg’s attempt to keep moral
considerations out of his discussion only exposes him to the oldest and
most vicious of ethical fallacies. For example (p. 166):
… modifications … may involve … psychological conditioning of

future generations … Yet to be raised in any society is to be condi-
tioned into certain beliefs and forms of behavior. In most cases the
conditioning is done unconsciously, and the beliefs are tacit. I do not
think that any new moral principle is established if we do the condi-
tioning consciously … It is a question of what the principles that are
instilled … are to be, and it would seem that the freely chosen goals
of the human race are worthy candidates.
In other words, if what is done inadvertently, or out of necessity (as much

social conditioning is), or to the smallest possible degree is morally right, then
REVIEWS 29
what is done knowingly, gratuitously, and as completely as possible is also morally

right. And the end justifies the means. A few more gems:
On p. 69, intelligence is defined as the ability to answer questions, a
definition that would fit any automatic telephone switchboard; by p. 77,
intelligence has somehow become synonymous with consciousness. On
p. 107, “there is no external standard for ethical statements” while on p. 126,
“we should not … feel any qualms about introducing ethical principles for
determining human actions other than the arbitrary preferences that people
alive at one time have …” (italics mine). On p. 154, Dr. Feinberg defends
his own pet goal, the extension of consciousness, by simple assertion:
“Consciousness is the most precious thing man possesses.” On p. 64, a
particular course of action is condemned because it would undo “the slow
growth of unity in mankind,” while on p. 134, “man is anything we call
one.” On p. 83, the possibility is raised that virtual immortality might make
people more afraid of death than they are now, but Dr. Feinberg says he
doesn’t think so. No evidence is given. On p. 161, the book considers
whether we know enough about “our own mental lives, the sources of our
motivations, and the conditions that would lead to happiness” to formulate
long-range goals for the entire human race, and comes to the staggering
conclusion that “these problems are less important if we are trying to make
statements about groups of men because the individual factors tend to
average out.” Anyway, “In any situation human beings must plan and act
on the basis of the best information they have.” (The Feinberg version of
Why not put beans up your nose?) In Chapter VI we leave reality altogether;
there is going to be a world-wide publicity campaign, discussion groups,
and finally a consensus of the human race as to what its long-range goals
should be, a process that will take from twenty to fifty years. There will
also be a Prometheus Coordinating Agency, or PCA, about which Dr.
Feinberg (he is a Physics Professor at Columbia) fusses for several pages.
Odd John is not a book I approve of, morally speaking, but after reading
Prometheus I know what drove Stapledon to write it.
It is a pleasure to get back to science fiction, especially to a book that shows

uncommon intelligence, like Kate Wilhelm’s Let the Fire Fall. The novel is
not as good as her best short stories – none of her novels have been – but
it has many good qualities and some that are rare in science fiction.
For one thing, the novel disregards commonplace pulp form completely,
and with no ill effects. For another, it is brimful of the details of ordinary
life – too full almost, for the people and places take on a liveliness beyond
that necessary to the plot. At times this is confusing, but more often it’s
delightful – real people, recognizable people whose lives twist and shift,
whose motives change, whose most commonplace decisions have
unexpected effects. The book is written in a style Henry James once (in
another context) called “feminine”; that is, the accents never fall where
you expect them to, the “big” events are over in a flash or are revealed
obliquely, and the novel always presses on to something else. It’s uncom-
monly like life and often compelling. Kate Wilhelm has begun to
experiment with style in a way I like, introducing herself here and there,
making lists of things, and generally turning from the straight path of virtue
to say things when she wants to and not when she “ought” to. There is the
odd matter-of-factness of real life, and the book is a real novel, a consid-
erable achievement in a field in which the adjustment of story to detachable
ideas is a perennial problem. And it’s a pleasure to read a novel in which
childbirth and family life are described by someone who knows about them.
However, the book’s virtues often kept me reading when I had intel-
lectual objections. For example, the characters in the book change their
minds quite a lot, sometimes very confusingly, especially the young
evangelist whose career provides the motive power for the plot. I could
not always follow what was going on, but the characters could, and I found
myself believing in them willy-nilly. Also, the book – although set some
ten years in the future – seems to me to occur quite definitely ten or fifteen
years in the past, although this may only mean I’m a provincial New Yorker
not acquainted with the “normal,” decent-American, small-town people
Kate Wilhelm is writing about. The novel employs that conflict of science
with a fundamentalist and revivalist religion so dear to the hearts of science-
fiction writers: the book traces the career of a sort of Billy Graham (Obie
Cox) and the kind of social changes caused by his Voice of God Church. It
seems to me that this theme, a beloved paranoia of ours, is not credible,
that the great twentieth-century wars of religion have been wars of political
ideology, and that any catastrophic repressions likely to occur in the future
will be political in name and nature and not in any way identifiably religious
(except for their intolerance).1 Scientism is our besetting vice, and without
some great disaster (like atomic war) we are unlikely to persecute science,
or even decently restrain it. The book reviewed just before this one is a
case in point.
That croggle aside (and a few pieces of dead wood, like a riot on page
120ff that I haven’t yet straightened out), Fire is a believable and exciting
book. Here is one of the main characters:
Dee Dee sang in the choir and bought the Pill from a college friend.
Dee Dee had read all of DeSade, had turned on twice with pot, smoked
a pack a day, and could drink three martinis and still drive … She
1 Author’s note: Oops.

REVIEWS 31
sang in a sweet soprano: “I will follow, follow all the way.” She opened
her mouth for the high notes, but didn’t try to reach them. Only the
choirmaster suspected, and he never had been able to pin down the
exact source of the reduced volume when the notes got up there.
The Wilhelm baddies are better than the goodies, and this one has a
career worthy of her.
World’s Best Science Fiction: 1968 is an excellent anthology, packed with fine
stuff, and with the special virtue of including many good stories originally
published outside the science fiction magazines: Poul Anderson’s “Kyrie,”
Brian Aldiss’s “The Worm That Flies,” and Terry Carr’s “The Dance of the
Changer and the Three” from The Farthest Reaches; Kurt Voneggut’s
“Welcome to the Monkey House” and Damon Knight’s “Masks,” both from
Playboy; and three from Britain – Colin Kapp’s “The Cloudbuilders,” Fritz
Leiber’s “The Square Root of Brain,” and Samuel Delany’s “Time
Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones.” The last two are not only
superb, but also eligible for any kind of award, please note (first publication
in this country).
Picking favorites here would result in my naming almost everything in
the table of contents; a few stories are weak but none is bad and most range
from good to – well, you decide. Robert Sheckley has a story about a city
that’s a Jewish mother; Burt Filer (a newcomer) has a first-rate story about
time-travel with a beautiful twist at the end; Fred Saberhagen re-tells the
story of Orpheus and Eurydice with another beautiful twist at the end; and
Katharine MacLean has a realistic, detailed, impressive story about
telepathy.
I am convinced – for the duration of this paragraph – that the short story
is the proper form for science fiction, always was, always will be. I partic-
ularly liked “Backtracked,” “Kyrie,” “The Worm That Flies,” “Masks,”
“Time Considered etc.,” “The Dance of the Changer and the Three” and
“The Square Root of Brain.” Buy it, read it, and find out which ones you
like best.
It is not really a crime to write The Last Starship from Earth (by John Boyd)
but why publish it? Why re-publish it? I would guess from much in the book
that the author is a very, very young man, and if he wants to go on writing
science fiction novels, I for one will not poison his coffee, because the third
or fourth try might be readable. But duty is duty, and I hereby publicly
state that The Last Starship from Earth is incoherent, bumbling, enthusiastic,
pretentious, ineffably silly, and – to put it kindly – immature in the extreme.
Berkley has no right to foist this amateurishness on the public. It is no favor
to Mr. Boyd to expose him to this sort of public shredding and no favor to
the public to convince them that science fiction is even worse than they
always thought it was. In time Mr. Boyd may learn what a plot is (he thinks
he can tie up 175 pages of loose ends in a few paragraphs) and what men,
women, and society are like. But he must also learn something about
science (“It was several microseconds before the aesthetics of her motion
intruded on his consideration of its mathematics”), something about
practical observation (“her voice dropped an octave”), and something
about style (“it was the first time in his life he had ever heard of a female
professional not in a house of recreation volunteer so titillating a witticism
from behind such a titivating facade”). I forgive Mr. Boyd the anguish his
novel caused me and hope he will eventually forgive me the anguish this
review may cause him, but for Berkley there is no forgiveness. Only reform.
Don’t do it again.
The Da Vinci Machine by Earl Conrad is an interesting and promising

collection of short stories by a writer new to the field. Subtitled “Tales of
the Population Explosion,” the book is a gaggle of satirical fantasies in
which the science is purposely absurd. Mr. Conrad doesn’t seem to have
gained full control of the short-story form yet, and although the tales are
literate and sometimes funny, his false-naive, “throw-away” manner leads
to many stories coming on strong only to fade away after the beginning.
The stories suffer from being presented in a collection, as they are all alike
and the one manner gets monotonous; the best of these could have
appeared to advantage in the science fiction magazines. The style is Lafferty-
and-water, and often good.
REVIEWS 33
The Day of the Dolphin. Robert Merle (Simon and Schuster, $5.95). Bug Jack
Barron. Norman Spinrad (Avon, 95¢). Emphyrio. Jack Vance (Doubleday,
$4.95). Best SF: 1968. Eds. Harry Harrison and Brian Aldiss (Putnam’s,
$4.95). The Empty People. K. M. O’Donnell (Lancer 75¢)
All books ought to be masterpieces. The author may choose his genre, his
subject, his characters, and everything else, but his book ought to be a
masterpiece (major or minor) and failing that, it ought to be good, and
failing that, it at least ought to show some sign that it was written by a
human being.
Robert Merle, Prix Goncourt winner and author of The Day of the Dolphin
may be a word-mill for all I know; the book is pure commodity, written
by the yard to be bought by the yard. Out of 320 pages the author uses
more than fifty to establish that there are dolphins, that they are intel-
ligent, and that these facts interest the U.S. Government. Knowing the
temper of his readers (whose delicate mental balance can be upset by the
least sign of intelligence or originality) M. Merle introduces scores of
characters to talk about dolphins and scores of others to listen to them; and
when that runs out, the hero’s lab assistants spend two hundred more pages
(dear God) quarreling about each other’s utterly stereotyped sexual procliv-
ities without, unfortunately, ever doing anything even remotely indecent. I
have been heard to complain that there is not enough characterization in
science fiction, but I hereby repent in tears and blood. If characters have to
be introduced to do utilitarian things in books – like turning on electric lights
– I far and away prefer the lightweight, portable, flexible cardboard cutouts
that science fiction writers are so fond of to M. Merle’s well-rounded,
“realistic,” ponderous, wooden dummies. The characters are supposed to be
Americans, but they are all French, including two ex-Vassar girls with uvular
r’s1 (ah, those languorous Poughkeepsie summers!) and the plot proper starts
on page 200. Everybody talks about the Vietnam war as if he had just heard
of it. If the book had been cut by two-thirds, the material about the dolphins
kept and the rest sketched in as lightly as possible, this could have been a
bearable novel, for M. Merle’s dolphins are interesting and likeable
characters. It’s the old story: a teeny dollop of idea mixed with vast amounts
1 Your uvula is the dingus that hangs down in front of your tonsils. An uvular r
is a liquid, trilled r, quite impossible in English.
of ultraconventional sludge. Do not be alarmed, nervous readers. Even

though the story is about dolphins, it will not hurt you, it is not really science
fiction, it is full of recognizable things straight from novel-land, and nothing
is real. M. Merle writes like this, by the way, it is very modish and experi-
mental, it is called “run-on sentences,” she flung herself on the bed, I will
kill all publishers, she thought.
I sometimes wonder if these vast, content-less, commercial megatheres
are not the last degenerate descendants of the nineteenth-century realistic
novel – dinosaurs, so to speak, whose great grandpa is War and Peace, the
panoramic effect of which they try to imitate by sheer size, that being the
only thing about realism they can remember.
Only half commodity is Bug Jack Barron by Norman Spinrad, the other six
or seven halves being Spinrad, word-wooze, exasperation, show biz,
screaming, and loss of control (the book does everything to excess). Reading
it is like trying to fix a watch with a jackhammer. It is a genuinely offensive
book – that is, it climbs up off your lap, pulls your ears, breathes in your
face, and tries determinedly to punch you in the nose. It has unmistakably
been written by a human being, but it is a bad book, partly because it is an
imitation Big Fat Success Novel and partly (I suspect) because the author
is not in control of his material, but is in the process of being smothered
by it.
BJB is written in a breathlessly baroque style like M. Merle’s, except for
the obscenities. Everybody talks like everybody else (including the villain,
who is supposed to be twenty years older than the hero and from a
completely different social background). Nor only that, they all think in the
same style and the book is narrated in that style; except for a few passages
about the hero’s ex-wife, there is no rest from the strident, insistent
Johnny-one-note, always-on-the-same-level intensity. If a character picks
up an ashtray, that ashtray will have as many verbal rosettes on it as a
suicide, or a murder, or any really important thing, and so will the cigarette
ashes that drop in it. Many scenes which are moving or charming on their
first appearance (like the love scenes, and they are love scenes) are consid-
erably less so when they are used as set-pieces the third or fourth time
round. I think also that a novel of political intrigue ought to have an intel-
ligible intrigue in it, and after a third reading I still cannot tell who is doing
what to whom and why (most of the uncertainty revolves around Sara
Westerfeld, Barron’s ex-wife). Moreover there ought to be a real villain in
it, and Benedict Howards (the mad millionaire of the book) is not even a
stereotype but only a villain-shaped hole crammed with super-high-gear
prose (no commas even) which somehow misses making anything of him
at all, not even a conventional gesture.
REVIEWS 35
Algis Budrys has noted that BJB moves in and out of the symbolic, and
I suspect that’s what’s wrong. This is one way of not being in control of
your material. Passionately, illogically, and spasmodically the book puts
forward certain moral ideas which I propose to treat seriously, as they are
neither trivial nor frivolously presented. They might be summarized as
follows: (1) Everybody adores power, especially women. (2) Death is worse
than anything. (3) Since nobody lives up to conventional moral standards,
nobody has any standards. (4) Everyone can be bought. Now I agree with
the last of these, but with none of the others, the offensive words being
“everybody,” “anything,” and “any.” If death is worse than anything,
people ought not to risk their lives or commit suicide, but they do both –
very often, in fact. And (beyond the needs of self-protection) some people
adore power, some do not, some are afraid of it, some are sober about it,
some don’t know anything about it, and so forth. As for number three, it
is only the first stage of disillusionment and a big mistake in practical affairs;
there are the things people believe and the things they think they ought
to believe, and the latter are usually the more destructive. I agree with Jack
Barron’s “Big Secret” (it is really the most open of all secrets) – i.e. that
every man has his price. To have your price means that you can be pleased,
that you have needs you must satisfy, that you can be hurt and therefore
coerced, in short that you are a human being and not an invulnerable
superman. But the subject takes too long; George Bernard Shaw’s Major
Barbara and the preface thereto are recommended reading. With Shaw, I
would say that every man’s having his price, far from being a scandal or a
moral horror, is an indispensable condition for any kind of human society
and that it is ridiculous to despise people for what is obviously as necessary
and natural a part of them as their arms and legs. The real question about
a man’s price is not whether he has one but how high it is and in what
coin it must be paid. People who cannot be bought by anything (pleasure,
happiness, creation, others’ happiness, life, freedom) have a name. They
are call fanatics. Also recommended is Erich Fromm’s distinction between
self-aggrandizement, self-abasement, and self-love.
In fact, BJB is not about power at all – the conflict in the book never
gets beyond lines like “Nobody crosses Benedict Howards!” or “Nobody
owns Jack Barron!” which would be downright silly in the context of a
real fight. The book is really about seduction, glamor, corruption, mana,
magical essences – in short, vanity. One thing Mr. Spinrad understands
inside out is entertainment as an industry and the fantasies bred by
celebrity; BJB is a hall of mirrors. There is only one real character in the
novel and the others stand around him in adoring attitudes; even the villain
is there only to serve as an enlarging mirror – if Jack can take on Benedict
Howards, what a giant-killer he must be! I think this is why Howards is so
unreal, and why nobody in the book is ever genuinely cruel or genuinely
cold, just as nobody is ever sad, or quiet, or kind. Howards’ “paranoia” (the
author ought to look that word up) is self-obsession, just as Jack Barron
(who would be intolerable in real life) is endlessly self-obsessed and
incapable of seeing any other character in the book as real, just as the
author shows over and over – perhaps without meaning to make so much
of it here – the paradox of celebrity and fake power. The rock star who
makes thousands of girls scream is surely a god, but the girls would not be
there if they did not want to scream; nothing is being done to them, since
they are doing it to themselves. This is the subject Spinrad can write about.
But power as money, anonymous power, legal power, real competition,
compromise, coercion, the weighing of real risks, the power to make people
do what they really don’t want to do – these are quite outside the scope
of the novel. A character in Death of a Salesman tells Willy Loman, “My son
doesn’t have to be well-liked because he has something to sell,” and these
are the cruelest lines in the play. They are also the most hard-headed. They
have more to do with power than anything in Norman Spinrad’s romantic,
half-innocent, youthfully bouncy, exasperatingly schlocky and ultimately
silly book.
Measured against the preceding works, Jack Vance’s Emphyrio like a star
i’ the darkest night sticks fiery off indeed. Mr. Vance has written a fine
book. It is very strange to glance back from this eerie, transparent
cockleshell of a novel, so much stronger than it seems (it’s made entirely
of forcefields) and so much faster than you’d think (it’s faster-than-light
and has a reactionless drive), to see the chrome-finned Cadillac of Bug Jack
Barron fighting to keep to ninety on the curves, and still further back, Robert
Merle’s version of the Merrimac wallowing badly in heavy seas and finally
capsizing.
Science fiction, like all literature, usually tries to make the strange
familiar, but Mr. Vance makes the familiar strange. One would swear he
had read Bert Brecht and decided to produce a novel that would be one
extended Verfremdungseffekt.2 He does it, too. Reading Emphyrio is like
looking at the world through the wrong end of a telescope – I don’t mean
that everything is small but that in some indescribable way everything is
set at a distance, and this combination of strange things seeming familiar and
familiar things suddenly becoming strange is the oddest and the finest in
the world. The cover artist (who understands this) has put a homey,
2 Usually translated as “alienation effect.” It might be better rendered (as Brecht

has done) as distancing, or the framing effect, or the effect you get by putting
something in quotation marks.
REVIEWS 37
commonplace kitchen next to a set of ruined Corinthian columns, and the

odd thing is that the two obviously belong together. The first chapter of
the book is misleading, for Emphyrio is not an adventure story but a
bildungsroman3 that describes a perfect curve from beginning to end. It is
very slight on the surface, cool and quiet throughout, without any of the
sourness of Eyes of the Overworld. Mr. Vance’s novel about the seven demon
princes suffered from a mismatching of plot and mood, but here the story
and the people are entirely at one. I really cannot do it justice. Mr. Vance
knows about childhood, grief, love, social structure, idealism, and loss, but
none of these breaks the perfect surface of the book; everything is cool,
funny, and recognizable while at the same time everything is melancholy,
real, and indescribably strange. There are veins of pure gold. The seven-
year-old hero, after seeing a puppet play, “had come to suspect that the
puppets were stolen children, whipped until they acted and danced with
exact precision: an idea investing the performance with a horrid fasci-
nation.” Or “I watched a Damaran walk; it walked with soft feet, as if its
feet hurt” (italics mine). Except for the very beginning (which might easily
have been omitted) the tone is perfectly controlled. What is one to say of
a puppet play the title of which is “Virtuous Fidelity to an Ideal Is the
Certain Highroad to Financial Independence”? Or of an author whose ear
is so sure that among names like Ambroy, Undle, and Foelgher, he can
serenely place a district called Riverside Park? Others grunt and heave to
sweat out sophomoric diatribes against organized religion; Mr. Vance
merely produces a Temple Leaper who asks the hero’s father severely
whether he has lately leapt to the glory of Finuka. Even the “happy” ending
of the book is curiously abrupt and somehow sad; what remains is not the
euphoria of a successful revolution but the memory of two boys watching
the sunset from Dunkum’s heights and dreaming of riches, the exact and
effortless taking-apart of a whole social system, the old puppeteer (his
puppets are living creatures) who says, “The years come fast. Some morning
they’ll find me lying stark, with the puppets climbing over me, peering in
my mouth, tweaking my ears …”
Best SF: 1968 edited by Harry Harrison and Brian Aldiss is a fair mixed bag
of stories framed by an Introduction and Afterword that indirectly – and
unfortunately – lead one to expect more from the stories than they manage
to give. The book does a great service to readers by reprinting four reviews
of 2001: Lester del Rey’s, Samuel Delany’s, Ed Emshwiller’s, and Leon
Stover’s. The book is moderately funny, moderately interesting, and, well
3 A novel of the formation of a character, or the process of passing from childhood

to adulthood, making oneself into a person.
– moderately everything. It’s hard to know what to say about a collection

in which nothing is particularly good but nothing is bad. One of Brian
Aldiss’s psychedelic-war stories is here, well done, although I have begun
to have had enough of the whole series; there is also a story by a new
writer, David Masson, which presents two fascinating ideas but fails to
connect them fictionally: mood-weather (“Insecure, rather sad feeling
today and tomorrow, followed by short-lived griefs”) and “poiks,” areas
that have become mosaics of different eras, geographically contiguous, into
which people can get lost. I found “Final War” by K. M. O’Donnell quite
good, and the collection will certainly be worth getting when it appears in
paperback. It leans toward the obvious and toward stories which have one
good, clear, conventional idea: Asimov’s “Segregationist” (robots), Kit
Reed’s “Golden Acres” (old-age homes), Stephen Goldin’s “Sweet Dreams,
Melissa” (computer psychology) and two technical puzzles, Mack
Reynolds’ “Criminal in Utopia” and Bob Shaw’s “Appointment on Prila”
(the first solves its problem; the second only pulls a rabbit out of a hat).
There’s also a sprinkling of the falsely profound, though I ought to admit
that Robert Sheckley’s story, “Budget Planet,” is out of its proper context,
and that I have been told it is not only funny but also subtle in Mr.
Sheckley’s novel, from which it has been untimely ripped. Perhaps it’s
because I was brought up with no religion at all that I detest the science
fiction tropism toward re-writing Christianity from what one might call
the village-atheist point of view. Although “Budget Planet” and Fritz
Leiber’s “One Station on the Way” are colorful and active enough, there
seems to me to be no point in flogging dead fundamentalist doctrines so
late in the day.4 That alone is not enough point for a story. Bert Silverberg’s
“To the Dark Star” hangs a lot of bizarrerie on a very slender thread; it
seems oddly gratuitous, as if the author had finished the story before he
decided what its theme was. There is also a well-written story by John D.
MacDonald, but its subject (the man who hallucinates days of life at the
moment of death) has been public property for some time, e.g. “The Occur-
rence at Owl Creek Bridge” and “Mr. Arcularis.”
K. M. O’Donnell’s The Empty People is a well-written book which I do not

understand at all. As far as I can tell, what seem to be the lives or fantasies
of various people are really the hallucinations of a man whose brain cancer
has been removed by heroic surgery and whose brain has been, so to speak,
4 A gorgeous instance of the falsely profound is an irresistible story, probably

written tongue-in-cheek (I’m afraid I don’t remember the author), in which a
group of space explorers find out that the universe is really the effluent of a
huge flush toilet. For reasons unknown to me, one kills himself, several go mad,
and the one character left sits around brooding about The Horror Of It All.
REVIEWS 39
re-wired. The book is the universe inside his skull; three characters have
been captured by aliens (a situation deliberately derived from trashy s.f.)
and are put to different tasks. One waits; one pursues; one flees. There are
constant promises that the metaphysical mysteries raised throughout will
be cleared up at the end and the meaning of the insistent symbolism finally
revealed, but the only thing that happens is that the cancer patient dies.
Mr. O’Donnell may be using his plot as an excuse for disconnected fantasies,
or he may not have mastered his method yet, or it may be a method I
cannot understand. The book has the air of being something that was either
cut after it was written or that never got itself properly written in the first
place. I remain baffled.
The Ship Who Sang. Anne McCaffrey (Walker, $4.95). Satan’s World. Poul
Anderson (Doubleday, $4.95). Report on Probability A. Brian W. Aldiss
(Doubleday, $4.50). I Sing the Body Electric. Ray Bradbury (Knopf, $6.95)
Professionally speaking, Anne McCaffrey is just a pup, as those who wish

to read The Ship Who Sang can verify for themselves. As late as 19661 Miss
McCaffrey was indulging in plenty of slipper-worryings, barkings-at-
nothing, and enthusiastic fallings-over-own feet. For me one of the
pleasures of reading Ship is watching it progress from some rather awful
gaucheries through the middling treatment of middling ideas to the two
final sections in which the author at last begins to dramatize scenes with
ease and some polish. But readers are not critics and may not find the eager
awkwardness of the beginning as appealing as I do. It tickled me, for
example, to hear a character remark gravely, “Such an A Caruso would
1 The date of magazine publication of the novel’s second and third episodes. The
first was published in 1961, the fourth and fifth in 1969, and the final episode
appears only in the novel.
have given the rest of his notes to sing,” or to find that the heroine’s first
mission (she is a cyborg built into a spaceship) is to rush a vaccine to “a
distant system plagued with a virulent spore disease,” while her second leads
to a tangle with “a minor but vicious narcotic ring in the Lesser Magel-
lanics.” Miss McCaffrey is infested with gremlins. My favorite in the whole
book is the statement (on page 56) that “A second enormous stride forward
in propagating the race of man occurred when a male sperm was scientif-
ically united with female ova,” a pronouncement that blends the impossible
with the ineffable. It’s true that these whoppers do not occur in the last
third of the novel, but all the same, somebody (God, the author, Walker,
the author’s children) should have rewritten the first three episodes so that
all the parts might be equally readable – and equally sensible.
For example, we are told that Helva, the heroine, is born deformed but
that she spends her first three months enjoying “the usual routine of the
infant.” Anyone not internally deformed would be better off with prosthetics
than with Helva’s all-enveloping metal “shell”; moreover, Miss McCaffrey
later insists that shell-people do not sleep, which is impossible, and that her
heroine has “no pain reflexes” – by itself a better reason for shell-life than
lack of limbs. There is considerable description of the technology used to
keep shell-people in their metal bodies, a long explanation of how Helva
can sing, and many references to special conditioning, but some very
important things are never explained. For one, an education that allows
Helva to see her first normal human being at the age of fourteen does not
seem practical for someone who will be spending much of her life working
with human partners. I am also confused as to how a shell-person who has
a microphone in or at her throat can produce consonants; Helva’s voice is
“instrumental rather than vocal” but the details are not clear. Most
important, we are told that Helva is a deliberately dwarfed but whole woman.
Leaving aside for a moment the problem of what happens to hair, finger-
nails, eyelashes, eyebrows, and dandruff inside a shell-person’s nutrient
bath, I find myself very curious about the one question the author never
answers: is Helva sexually mature? We know she’s sterile, but what about
her ductless glands? If she is indeed a sexually mature woman, encapsu-
lating her in a metal shell strikes me as a form of refined torture and I do
not think we are supposed to imagine that Central Worlds is that callous.
On the other hand, she falls in love with her first “brawn” (human partner),
as do other brain ships in the novel – one even tries to commit suicide for
love. Perhaps shell-life agrees with women better than it does with men; at
any rate, the few male cyborgs in the novel are presented as fussy,
complaining types with over-inflected voices. I would also like to know
what life without olfactory or tactile sensations does to the human psyche
(compare Fritz Leiber’s The Silver Eggheads). And why does Helva lack these?
REVIEWS 41
Couldn’t those areas of the brain be turned to good account in reading

gauges or sensing meteor swarms or whatever else one has to do to run a
spaceship? (See Samuel Delany’s Nova.) At one point in the book the heroine
briefly inhabits an alien body; one would think such an experience would
be either devastating or addicting, but not much is made of it.
All these confusions seem to me to be the result of a lack of rewriting.
In its last episode, when the book really picks up, when people lose their
mechanically explanatory voices and start yelling at each other, when
Helva finds her second love, a short, blunt-mannered, vain, fake-hard-
boiled guy who’s a bit of a dandy, Ship turns into quite a good thing. Even
at its silliest the book has a contagious joyfulness. An added pleasure:
people’s motives are usually connected with love or family feeling, a respite
from the war, commerce, and rivalry of the usual space romance. Write
more of the same sort, say I.
But alas, what happens when you do? Satan’s World by Poul Anderson is
one of what James Blish calls a template series – Trader to the Stars appeared
in 1964, and although World may be the second in the series or the fifteenth
(I am ignorant thereof), something unpleasant has happened to the
template in between, and that something is weariness.
Poul Anderson can write rings around Anne McCaffrey and he makes
an interesting and in places fascinating and moving book out of material
she would cover (scratchily) in four pages. But he doesn’t enjoy it. There
is, in World, a sense of sourness, of things gone stale and wrong. The
characters’ personalities have declined into mannerisms, and the
mannerisms into tics. Adzel, who should be serene, is merely smug; Chee
Lan, who should be explosive, is irritated and irritating; and David Falkayn,
who began (if I remember correctly) as a charming mixture of eagerness
and youthful cynicism, has become a cad when the author bothers to make
him a character at all. Even Nicholas van Rijn, whose scrambled English
remains amusing and sometimes brilliant, is more often just a greedy,
lecherous, dirty-old-man.
Mr. Anderson has never minded jerry-building his stories, although he
usually keeps the jerry-building in the beginning (the least worst place)
and uses it, as here, to force-feed the reader as quickly as possible with the
standard background of the standard characters and the few givens the
story needs. There is a girl, I swear to God, clad in “a few wisps of iridescent
cloth,” who remarks that “none of us girls has travelled past Jupiter” and
is described by the hero as “sophisticated.” Characters lecture each other
on what both of them already know. There is a line separating Anderson
the Good from Anderson the Awful which Anderson the Author crosses
with apparent unconcern, at one moment giving his hero “an animal
alertness developed in countries for which man was never meant” and in
the next describing a chief secretary “who was of a warrior caste in a tigerish
species and thus required to be without fear” (italics mine). Or “four and a half
meters of dragon following on tiptoe.”
As one would expect of a series, the best things are the new ones made
up for the occasion. The scenery is grand and the aliens are fine, although
Mr. Anderson’s aliens always seem to be violently belligerent no matter what
kind of planet they live on or what sort of creatures they are: flying carni-
vores (a recent magazine series), freak herbivores (this book), or feline beings
with women’s faces (a past story). There are scattered remarks that are very
provocative and insufficiently discussed, my favorite being “Vegetarian
sophonts do not have purer souls than omnivores and carnivores. But their
sins are different.” Mr. Anderson also presents some apologetics for the
Polesotechnic League (which apparently has not yet found out that a
conspiracy in restraint of trade, as the technical term has it, pays more than
competition) and remarks about government, evolution (“ruthlessly
selective”), and the biological basis of personality which make me burst with
impatience to refute them. There is one comment about “private war” that
makes me long to send the author a copy of The Oresteia and Hobbes’ Leviathan,
postage due. Mr. Anderson should write prefaces, like Shaw’s.
It is rude to make nasty noises about half-loaves to someone who must,
after all, make a living from the stuff, but I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to register a personal hwyl on the subject of what Anderson the
formalist has done to Anderson the artist. The novels he could write! The
novels he won’t write! If this goes on much longer, I shall burn my copy
of Three Hearts and Three Lions and expire amid the ashes. And it would not
be so bad if the man were not – intermittently – so very, very good.
I think Poul Anderson sees the world as an unhappy place of much
vulnerability and little splendor and that he ought to say so. One of the
striking things about World (and this is usual lately with this author) is that
the book’s evocations of joy, strength, and freedom fall very flat indeed.
At one point Adzel reminisces about:
the wide prairies of Zatlakh, earthquake hoofbeats, wind whooping

off mountains ghost-blue above the great horizon! After dark, fires
beneath a shaken aurora; the old songs, the old dances, the old
kinship that runs deeper than blood itself.
David Falkayn has a similar passage:
Hikes through the woods; swims in the surf … a slab of black bread
and cheese, a bottle of some wine, shared one night with the dearest
little tart …
REVIEWS 43
In short, when asked to invoke the joy of life, the author carries on like
the Scand of Minneapolis (to use William Atheling, Jr.’s phrase), while the
book’s descriptions of misery, failure, weakness, and pain, especially
emotional pain, are considerably more convincing. One wrests from life,
with great effort, a kind of bleak, minimal happiness – this is the unspoken
message of the novel. There are no equals in this story and no love, although
space adventure does not automatically preclude either (cf. Miss
McCaffrey’s romance). There is a conventional, stylized camaraderie
between shipmates Falkayn, Adzel, and Chee: otherwise everything in this
world is seen as a question of hierarchy, or perhaps it would be better to
say a question of dominance – one of the horrors in the story is “Brain-
scrub,” the taking over of one’s very personality, and I think it no accident
that such complete control of one person over another is spoken of as a
rape. Nor is it a matter of chance that the heroine-victim, Thea (the only
fully developed new character in the book, aside from the aliens), is seen
as tragically vulnerable, vulnerable through her feelings, responsive, affec-
tionate (not only to her master but also to van Rijn and Falkayn and
someone who is actually an employee), and far more interesting than the
successful characters. If only the weak can feel, only the weak are real.
Success anaesthetizes and isolates.
As I said, I think this is Anderson the Somber trying to surface. He also
had a hand in creating the horrifying sexual relationships in the novel:
Chee Lan’s open contempt for her lover; van Rijn and his whores (I really
cannot remain polite about this); Falkayn’s cheerful exploitation of his
simp of a calendar girl, and hers of him; and – to top it off – Thea’s tragic
adoration of her raging alien master.
Not that I think the author should stop this. He should go to the limit
with it. Mr. Anderson has written in a fanzine column about what he called
the “fascist” virtues and cited as one of them an awareness of the tragic, that
is, an awareness of irremediable failure. I wish he would let this virtue into
his work in its real form, not in the form of grim glory or ersatz Byronism
(common forms in heroic romance). He has done it before, as in “Kyrie,”
a very interesting short story published in one of the Orbit collections. I
also remember an adventure story in which the aliens (warlike, as usual)
had beautiful “muliebrile” (i.e. womanish) faces and strange aesthetic/
erotic overtones, in which the Garden of War was a disturbing and
disturbingly lovely place, a story far more interesting, both artistically and
dramatically, than the usual space-opera set-up, however smoothly and
professionally done and however spectacular the scenery (Mr. Anderson,
as usual, is very good at this).
World is a book made almost completely out of overstory: conscious,
controlled, craftsmanlike, economical, ultimately irritating. I wish Mr.
Anderson would stop controlling things so hard, would allow more

breathing space for the understory, and let us see the results.
Brian W. Aldiss’s Report on Probability A is a Robbe-Grillet novel with Harold

Pinter conversations that has somehow bemused Doubleday into printing
it as science fiction. Part One is entitled “G Who Waits” and the last two
lines of the book are “She waited” and “He waited.” In between you wait.
There is an epigraph from Goethe which sums up the novel, “Do not, I beg
you, look for anything behind phenomena. They are themselves their own
lesson.” Report is a false-narrative, a book full of narrative cues that raise
expectations only to thwart them. The prose is purposely meandering,
sometimes funny (“A pigeon called X”). There are hints of a mystery that
remains unresolved, one hundred and ninety pages of clear, beautifully
written prose which slowly builds up to a perfectly controlled, low-keyed
lyricism, and a great deal of repetition. Most of the book deals with the
objects in and around a certain house and the quiddity thereof; the
following is typical:
Below the door was a stone step. This stone step had two features,
one permanent, one temporary. The permanent feature stood on the
right, the temporary feature stood on the left. The permanent feature
was a shoe scraper of ornamental ironwork, the two ends of which
curved upwards like dragons’ heads; through the telescope’s circle
of vision, it was impossible to determine if they were intended to
represent dragons’ heads. (p. 76)
I admire everything about the novel except its length. Matter organized
in the lyrical, not the narrative, mode cannot be sustained for this long.
Report would have made a brilliant novelette, but as a novel it is sheer self-
indulgence. I had to work very hard to get through it all and would on no
account read it again.
Ray Bradbury does everything wrong. Anne McCaffrey can sing better;
Poul Anderson can think him under the table; and compared with Brian
Aldiss, he is as a little child. To him old people are merely children, in fact
everybody is a child; he prefers imitative magic to science (which he does
not understand); his morality is purely conventional (when it exists at all);
his sentiment slops over into sentimentality; he repeats himself
inexcusably; he makes art and public figures into idols; and there is no
writer I despise more when I measure my mind against his, as George
Bernard Shaw once said of Shakespeare.
REVIEWS 45
Mr. Bradbury has put out a new collection of stories, I Sing the Body
Electric. It is third-rate Bradbury, mostly. It is silly. It totally perverts the
quotation from Whitman which it uses in its title. It is very good. Much
has been made of Bradbury’s lyricism, but no one (I think) has stressed
the extraordinary economy of his style. He presents almost everything either
in lyrical catalogue or dramatically, and while the lyrical catalogues
sometimes fall flat, the dramatic dialogue hardly ever does. This gives his
world tremendous immediate presence; “Show, don’t tell,” might be the
frontispiece for any of his books. Or “Do many things simultaneously” (which
is the real secret). Near the end of “The Kilimanjaro Device” the narrator
says:
I had the car up to ninety.

We both yelled like boys.
After that I didn’t know anything.
The one thing Mr. Bradbury has going for him as content is an extremely
fine understanding of a certain kind of childish or child-like emotion – the
girl who was afraid to swing on a swing after her mother died because she
knew it would break, in “The Kilimanjaro Device” the narrator’s careful
avoidance of Hemingway’s name, the ancient lady who is selfishly
delighted that her long-dead fiancé is really dead. And who else would talk
of the summer air as “the summer swoons”?
In the book are two science-fiction stories, both refugees from The
Martian Chronicles (as it were), a sprinkling of realistic stories with the
smell, if not the content, of fantasy, a very bad poem, three very funny,
charming and slick Irish stories, an uncharacteristically realistic story about
incest, a gorgeous paean to beautiful, ageless Mother (“The Electric
Grandma”), and several previously un-reprinted fantasies: “The Women,”
“Tomorrow’s Child” (the blue pyramid baby), “The Tombling Day,” and
“Downwind from Gettysburg.” Bradbury-haters will insist that these
stories, like all his others, are about nothing. The truth is that his voice
varies little and there is little in his stories – hence the effect of something
spun gleaming out of nothing. Art can exist without encyclopedic
knowledge, sophisticated morality, philosophy, political thought, scientific
opinion, reflection, breadth, variety, and a lot of other good things. What
else can I say? Mr. Bradbury strikes me as a writer on the same level
as Poe, the kind of writer people will still be reading, still downgrading,
still praising, a century from now. Damon Knight’s In Search of Wonder
(Advent Press, Chicago, 1967) says all I want to say and says it better. See
Chapter 10, friends.
Still vibrating gently from the effects of the electric book, I quote Auden:
Time that is intolerant

Of the brave and innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,
Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives …
Doubters please note the exact meaning of that last line.
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, February 1971
This Perfect Day. Ira Levin (Random House, $6.95). The Simultaneous Man.
Ralph Blum (Atlantic-Little Brown, $5.95). The Dark Symphony. Dean R.
Koontz (Lancer, 75¢). Sea Horse in the Sky. Edmund Cooper (Putnam’s, $4.95)
Madame X presents, in an intensified form, a common problem of

movie interpretation. Children sometimes interpret movies in terms
of what they see on the screen, and the adults with them often try
to explain what they are supposed to see, so that the children will be
able to follow the plot … In general, the wider the gap, the less the con-
nection the movie has with art or talent or any forms of honesty …
Pauline Kael, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Bantam, 1969), p. 150
Stage life is artificially simple and well understood by the masses; but
it is very stale; its feeling is conventional; it is totally unsuggestive of
thought because all its conclusions are foregone … Real life, on the
other hand, is so ill understood, even by its clearest observers, that
no sort of consistency is discoverable in it; there is no “natural justice”
corresponding to that simple and pleasant concept, “poetic justice”;
and, as a whole, it is unthinkable. But, on the other hand, it is credible,
stimulating, suggestive, various, free from creeds and systems – in
short, it is real.
George Bernard Shaw, “A Dramatic Realist to His Critics,”
The New Review, London, July 1984
REVIEWS 47
Ira Levin, the author of Rosemary’s Baby, has written a science fiction novel
called Son of Brave New World – sorry, I mean This Perfect Day – which is 309
pages long. It has a pretty cover and there are a lot of characters in it. It is
a tidy and comfy book, smooth as Crisco from beginning to end, and if I
sound unduly nasty, please keep in mind that I am not after Ira Levin in
particular. I wish to shoot down a whole class of bad, bad writing and to
do that, one might as well take a shot at one of the best examples, if
rottenness can be said to have a best and a worst. “All its conclusions are
foregone,” says Shaw, above, and when you say that, you have said what
is (to my mind) more morally damning than anything about implausibility
or awkwardness or lack of skill. This Perfect Day makes science fiction written
by science fiction writers look amazingly eccentric; I never realized what
a freaky bunch we are, or what a strong impression of real, individual
minds at work one gets from even the worst science fiction. I might add
that a bad book written by a human being is infinitely preferable to a
“perfect” book apparently written by a sales chart.
Mr. Levin’s pale monster of a novel takes the saccharine, passive, affect-
less, drugged world of Huxley and reduces it to very weak tea indeed. For
some reason, “our Ford” and “our Freud” (Huxley’s witty and compact
comment on us) are changed to Marx, Christ, and two other persons whose
significance or cultural contribution is never explained. The society is
coercive in a saccharine, “unselfish,” very modern way – what the devil
has Marx to do with this kind of togetherness? The blandness of the hero’s
experience is evoked very well at first, but when he manages to duck his
required drugs and starts “coming alive” (the name of the second part out
of four of the novel), the prose remains exactly the same, and the
character’s perceptions remain exactly the same. It is all very sensible, very
detailed, and very thorough, but there is not the slightest intensity, the
slightest vividness of characterization, the slightest trace of dramatic climax,
the slightest exploration of the moral and social problems raised by such
a society (or the slightest offering of alternatives), nor is anything in the
book genuinely or vividly visualized. This Perfect Day (like Gone With the
Wind) gives the impression that a truly momentous climax is brewing just
around the corner – only read on, read on, and before you know it, you’re
in the end papers. There are no low points, but there are no high points,
either; in fact there are no points at all, and you can put the book down
and pick it up anywhere.
How many times can one take apart a commercial mechanism? Readers
are timid, so the book is very slow; readers want value for money, so the
book is very long; readers have no background, so the book avoids
explaining anything technical; readers are not literate, so the style is simple;
readers like sex but are conservative, so the sex is mild. Readers (you, dear
reader) are stupid, so the hero’s final “sophistication” barely approaches

that of the feeblest member of the audience. Mr. Levin has made up or
found (it really doesn’t matter; in science fiction ideas are free because
what really matters can’t be patented) some of the God-awfullest clichés
of our poor field – the women in this society have no breasts, for example
(does he have any idea of the hormonal manipulations necessary for this?)
except for the heroine, of course (!) and you know the hero is a throwback
(ha ha) because he has one green eye and one brown eye. This is a crude
sort of genetic determinism to find in a book that’s trying to be a paean to
individuality – but never mind; read Pauline Kael (above) and you’ll under-
stand. There is, of course, the usual reward for good morality, i.e. good sex
(a liberal cliché if there ever was one; I’m tempted to write it Goodsex, like
Orwell), and naturally there is nary a whisper as to what sort of social
system is to replace the bad one. Mr. Levin doesn’t want to be moral; he
only wants to be pious.
In Brave New World, Huxley’s loyalties are divided and hence there is
some inner drama; Huxley is interested in real life and hence there are real
people. But why go on? This Perfect Day is readable only in the way that
the kind of movie Pauline Kael talks about is seeable – in terms of what
we know we are supposed to see, not what is really there.
This is a lot of animus to direct against a fat, smooth, harmless best-
seller (you may say), but I have become convinced that these fat pets are
genuinely vicious en masse, and that the habit of lazily accepting “supposed
to be” for “is” is responsible for a lot worse things than a few hours in a
hammock with Ira Levin’s latest. Let me quote Algis Budrys in the
December 1968 issue of Galaxy:
Characterization and motivation in commercial writing … [are]

there in predigested form, or if not the fact itself, then its inevitable
consequences. In order to hit fast with it, get it done and get out, you
and the reader both simplify … “I know better, but … for enter-
tainment’s sake I’ll go along with their belief.” … But implicit in this
blithe surrender is an acknowledgement, right there at the heart of
the process, that the process is of no consequence.
Certainly minor matters can be of little consequence; Poul Anderson

(as I’ve had occasion to mention before) jerry-builds the beginnings of his
stories. But This Perfect Day is jerry-built all through, and like Rosemary’s
Baby, pretends to mull over deep moral problems. It is a thoroughly
complacent book. Other readers (stupid readers, not like all of you who
are proving your wisdom by reading me) will come up to us at parties and
actually want to talk about the moral problems posed by This Perfect Day –
REVIEWS 49
as though there were any! This is the kind of habit we laugh at when it
involves only books; but go read the recent collection of writings done by
children in Harlem schools, where it involves human lives, and then look
long and hard at the title of the collection: The Way It Spozed To Be.
Ralph Blum, author of The Simultaneous Man, may be suffering from Levin’s
Disease, but then again he may just be inexperienced. The book jacket
promises that “This Book Is Based On Fact” and I suppose it is: people do
spend most of their lives opening file folders and then shutting them,
looking at desks, looking away from desks, drinking drinks, drumming
their fingers, lighting cigarettes, going from this place to that place, being
aware of the rooms they’re in, driving in automobiles, drying their hands,
washing their hands, turning lights on, turning them off, and so on. But
they really ought not to spend whole novels doing almost nothing else.
What the book jacket meant, I suspect, is that the brainwashing described
in the novel is actually being practiced by our government. If Mr. Blum
has the slightest evidence that anything like that is going on, he ought to
go directly to Evergreen Review, The Realist, Life, The NY Times, and any and
all underground publications he can find and holler cop as loud as he
possibly can. To put such stuff in a bad novel is foolish and cowardly. But
there I go again – actually trying to believe the story, as if it were a real
construct that existed. Technically The Simultaneous Man is very bad – Mr.
Blum uses the worst point of view imaginable for his material – that of the
omniscient author – and his story bucks badly: seemingly endless
exposition followed by a spurt of plot, another huge chunk of exposition
and another spurt of plot, und so weiter. There are lots of characters one
never gets to know, and a description of a brain operation which fails
completely to convey the moral horror of what is being done. I tried to
separate relevant from irrelevant detail only to decide that all the detail
was irrelevant – the book is full of irritating bits like “He was aware of a
pulse in his left temple” which seem to be indices of emotion, but which
somehow never succeed in making clear just what sort of emotion. There
are also bits of material that are peculiarly scattered, sentences in which a
reader is asked to visualize material without the proper background or is
given the background in the second part of the sentence when he needs
it in the first. An example:
Through the scrub-room window, they could see into the green-tiled
operating room where Art Ballard, already gowned, was filling a
syringe. (p. 13)
This exasperating, jump-about stuff is all through The Simultaneous Man.

I suspect that like most big publishing houses making their first venture
into science fiction, Atlantic-Little Brown simply lost all judgment and
assumed that anything would do, just as a famous colleague of mine at
Cornell once expressed astonishment at my knowing any science. “When
you need a scientific explanation in one of those stories, you just make it
up, don’t you?” he said. The science in Mr. Blum’s book is not only
inaccurate but also stupefyingly inconsistent; he’s as bad as A. E. Van Vogt
but without the charm. The Simultaneous Man is about faking memory; the
way this is done is to question subject A while A is under drugs (the perfect
drug for this purpose having been discovered), then have a troupe of actors
re-enact A’s life. Their re-enactments are filmed. Subject B, his own
memories having been surgically eradicated, is then “fed” the film of A’s
memories at very high speed while he (Subject B) is under the same perfect
drug. Subject B then becomes a duplicate of Subject A. Mr. Blum doesn’t
seem to have considered the time it would take a troupe of real actors to
re-enact thirty-odd years of a man’s life (even allowing for time spent during
sleep) or the lack of all senses except sight and hearing. For a long time
science fiction has assumed that the only way to transfer memories is
through direct electrical patterning and this still seems to me inherently
much more sensible, despite the fact that both methods are now impos-
sible. Halfway through The Simultaneous Man, Mr. Blum’s A and B go into
telepathic contact – this is neither explained nor used as part of the plot.
B apparently falls apart because he does not match his memories physi-
cally (he is black, A is white), but there are also suggestions that the presence
of the original “pulls” at the twin like “a magnet” – we never find out the
real cause.
Apparently the visual/auditory tape is played to the subject during a
kind of enforced catatonia, but in the novel A watches B’s eyes during input
– so just where is the input put in? If it’s direct electrical stimulation of the
brain, then I go back to my original objection.
There is a young lady put in the novel for the hero, A, to have Goodsex
with but who seems otherwise totally unnecessary. She is a surprising
character, however: “Her face was amazing: still buoying Lehebokov on
the outgoing tide of her thoughts, her mind was shifting to Horne and he
felt the drag and rush of feeling” (p. 226).
The book jacket tells us that the author’s parents “were movie people”
and that The Simultaneous Man is his second book. I’ll hazard a guess and
say that Mr. Blum does not know the first thing about writing fiction, that
he is trying to write a film or TV script without realizing it, and that he is
an intelligent man whose idea of writing fiction is to put down everything
in the characters’ field of vision – and that is no idea at all.
All this, mind you, is directed at the publisher, not at the writer. A
REVIEWS 51
publishing house which goes into s.f. without some experienced person
on its staff is heading for trouble: either incoherent drek or slick blandness.
A few hints of government nasties and a lot of file cabinets and tiled floors
do not a novel make; nor does one old idea and lots of padding. Nor are
the usual rules of consistency, economy, good writing, and good sense
suspended in our field because “you just make that stuff up.”
On page 115 of The Simultaneous Man there is a beautiful translation of
a poem by Alexander Blok. I take it this is Mr. Blum’s (no credit is given
otherwise). Anybody who can write those curiously Brechtian stanzas
ought not to waste his time producing mimic novels. Starve or teach like
the rest of us.
The Dark Symphony by Dean R. Koontz is a silly, ritualistic adventure story

of Rebellious Hero in Repressive Society. There is no pretense about the
book; all is as economical, ridiculous, and flamboyant as can be. It will
probably be morally corrupting to adolescents who take it seriously, but it
is so stripped-down an example of its kind that I can’t imagine anyone
taking it seriously. There are as few scenes in the book as is compatible
with the plot’s moving at all: Hero in Arena (with background of Bad
Society), Hero with Rebellious Mutants, Revolution, Hero Beating Up Non-
Revolutionary Best Friend, Hero and Heroine Escaping to New Land. It is
rather silly and lurid (“bloodlust in every cell”) but it is unpretentious and
quirky, and it has all the glomph of the stories we told ourselves when we
were twelve. It also has a Women’s Lib heroine, ta-rah! (well, sort of).
There is one good idea: Manbats (known as bat-men to other writers).
Mind you, it’s only bearable in comparison with This Perfect Day and The
Simultaneous Man, but it’s unabashed trash and will do to prop up a table
leg.
Sea Horse in the Sky by Edmund Cooper has surprisingly pleasant, under-
stated characters in a thoroughly impossible frame; I suspect the book was
never thought through or rewritten. The Desert Island ploy is one of the
easiest to set up in literature and one of the hardest to resolve: sixteen
people wake up in front of a hotel on a strange world; there is food and
water and a road that leads nowhere; who – or what – is conducting an
experiment? Mr. Cooper’s people are interesting and his alien “stage-set”
(for several groups of quasi-humans are being kept in this way) convinc-
ingly blank and eerie. The trouble with this sort of thing is that the
resolution of the mystery (whose experiment and for what purpose) has
to be a humdinger, and Mr. Cooper had nothing plausible or even moving
to hand, so he brings the curtain down on one of the flattest denouements
of all time. It is neither impressive nor plausible, and what’s worse, it is in
no way a dramatic resolution of what’s gone before. It’s simply arbitrary

and it completely spoils the novel.
Otherwise there is a charming Stone Age couple, the good sense and
matter-of-factness of the other characters, and a certain low-keyed good
humor. As Mr. Cooper has set up his plot, however, the end must justify
the preceding mystification, and the end here is just nothing.
The Bed Sitting Room. Richard Lester (movie). First Flights to the Moon. Ed.
Hal Clement (Doubleday, no price). SF: Author’s Choice 2 (Berkley, 75¢).
One Step from Earth. Harry Harrison (Macmillan, $5.95). The Cube Root of
Uncertainty (Macmillan, $5.95). Time Rogue. Leo P. Kelley (Lancer, 75¢).
Operation Ares. Gene Wolfe (Berkley, 75¢)
Movies don’t belong in a book review, but Baird Searles (our new film
reviewer) will probably never have a chance to see Richard Lester’s fine
science fiction film, The Bed Sitting Room, and I want to call readers’ attention
to it. The film was released some time ago and seems to have died so quietly
that no one I know even heard about it. I saw it last summer only by
accident.
The Bed Sitting Room (we would say “one-room apartment”) is a familiar
story of England ravaged by the Bomb, but the world of the film has suffered
a weird shift into the ultraviolet, so that the familiar incidents one would
expect are represented not by themselves, but by absurdities that are only
half metaphorical. Plague? Sir Ralph Richardson not only fears that he will
turn into a bed-sitting room, but actually does so (in an unfashionable part
of London). There are the young lovers – Rita Tushingham, seventeen
months pregnant, who announces herself as “Penelope, the celebrated
fiancée,” and complains to her lover, Alan, that they really ought not to
eat Dad, who has been metamorphosed first into an intelligent parrot and
then into a barbecued chicken. The perversion (a gentleman who has spent
REVIEWS 53
a decade in a bomb shelter after shooting his wife and mother-in-law as

they tried to get in) is of a kind that would astonish Krafft-Ebing. In a very
British clinging to business-as-usual, a Mrs. Ethel Noakes (the nearest to
the throne) has become Queen; at the end of the film everyone sings:
God save Mrs. Ethel Noakes,

God save Mrs. Ethel Noakes,
God save Mrs. Ethelnoakes.
(Then they add her address.)
Mrs. Noakes appears, royally dressed and mounted on a horse under an

arch made of junked refrigerators; radiation is declared unnecessary and
despair un-British, the sky turns blue, the grass springs up, Penelope’s
monster-baby turns to a real baby; and it is declared that everything is now
hotsy-totsy. My favorite is the young man who appears in a dirigible (it’s
weighted by the dangling chassis of a Volvo) and announces: “Times of crisis
and social instability often produce new leaders. Here I am, so watch it.”
The audience I was with (like the critics, apparently) could not make up
its mind whether The Bed Sitting Room was a Laff Riot or a Stark Drama; it
is, of course, neither. The film moves slowly, almost pastorally, amid the
eerie beauty of an industrial ash-heap: mountain ranges of shoes, valleys
of bright yellow or vermilion mud, deserts of trash, the rusty skeleton of an
old car-wash at which men congregate, drinking the dirty water as if the
place were a bar. It is absurd, sad, surrealistically beautiful, and very, very
frightening. It is the Goon Show gone sad. (There are many Goon Show actors
in evidence.) A straight story of atomic devastation would not affect us by
now, but this weird, skewed collection of absurdities goes right to the heart.
I think the original commercial failure of the film was due to people’s (and
critics’) not picking up the science fiction cues (which are obvious to anybody
in the field) and so not knowing how to take the film. Will the Kindly Editor
forward this column to whoever owns the rights to The Bed Sitting Room?
Publicized as science fiction (to a college audience for starters), the movie would
attract the audience it needs. You might very well have a commercial success
on your hands. The film is already an artistic success.
In my last column I noted that writers new to science fiction often
produce God-awful books. Luckily movie directors new to the field, like
Richard Lester, often produce films as good as The Bed Sitting Room.
Anthologies seem to be growing introductions lately, clone-fashion; the

worse the stories, the longer (and more burbly) the introductions. This is
called “padding.” Doubleday’s First Flights to the Moon is an extremely slight
collection of reprints eked out by an awful lot of commentary. Except for
Larry Niven’s fine “Wrong Way Street” and Mr. Clement’s comment on
A. Bertram Chandler’s “Critical Angle,” First Flights to the Moon is nothing
but an exploitation of the moon shot. It simply should not have been done.
Harry Harrison’s SF: Author’s Choice 2 also suffers from fat-between-the-

stories. It may be interesting to fans or other authors to see what s.f. writers
pick as their own favorite tales, but the result is an uneven collection. More
than that, it is an encouragement to silly self-indulgence; people ought to
be interested in our work, not in us. I too am pathetically grateful for the
chance to peek out from behind the typewriter, but unless the introduc-
tions are little stories in themselves (as in Harlan Ellison’s Dangerous Visions)
there is really no excuse for them. The stories – bad as some of them are
– are better than the authors’ comments on their typewriters, their
wallpaper, the fact that they are modestly proud of the story, the fact that
it isn’t well known, or their clichés about writing, criticism, the uncon-
scious, and the Creative Process.
To stick to the stories: the collection is a mixed, uneven, moderately
interesting grab-bag, second-rate (and mostly second-hand), but readable.
There are four good stories in it: Alfred Bester’s “Fondly Fahrenheit,”
Robert Silverberg’s “To See the Invisible Man,” Brian Aldiss’s “Auto-
Ancestral Fracture,” and Hal Clement’s “Proof.” Mr. Clement’s story is a
triumph of sheer conception over naiveté (it was first published in 1942),
and Mr. Aldiss’s is a mannered, pretentious, “literary” tale of the Acid-
Head War. Much of the static description in “Fracture” is really fine – e.g.,
the moviemaker’s swimming pool overgrown with water hyacinth – but
Mr. Aldiss does not seem able to handle action in this way, and there are
poems scattered through the tale that, even in context, are just plain awful.
Writers ought not to indulge themselves by smuggling bad verse into their
stories; take your chances with the little magazines like a man.
Harry Harrison’s One Step from Earth is a collection of nine stories bound
together loosely (and not altogether truthfully) by the idea of matter trans-
mission. There is another hypertrophied introduction, hypertrophied in
this case because it has nothing to do with the stories; in fact, the matter
transmitter described in the introduction is of the kind used in only one of
the nine. Two of the tales don’t really need matter transmission at all. The
stories are routine, unoriginal, mildly interesting, and readable.
Robert Silverberg’s The Cube Root of Uncertainty is a collection of twelve

stories: six Old Silverberg (before 1967) and six New Silverberg. Old
Silverberg is an idiot (“But it takes all sorts to make a continuum,” he philo-
sophically decided), but New Silverberg is something else: a highly colored,
REVIEWS 55
gloomy, melodramatic, morally allegorical writer who luxuriates in lush

description and has a real love of calamity. Six such tales are not worth
the price of the hardcover book, but the paperback will probably be out
soon. I find myself in real trouble in evaluating New Silverberg. I don’t like
his feverishness or his intense, mad romanticism, and I suspect Mr.
Silverberg (as Old Silverberg, the extremely self-conscious and clever hack)
needs some time to get out of his system all the sophomoric dark doom
that most of us – far less technically expert – dealt with during our appren-
ticeships. The book contains the famous “Passengers,” “To the Dark Star,”
“Neighbor,” and “Halfway House.” “Sundance,” the best of the lot, achieves
a playing with reality that is often aimed at in science fiction but seldom
realized. Mr. Silverberg gets better and better. His recent serial in Galaxy,
Downward to the Earth, is a genuine novel that needs no apologies (except
perhaps for the very end – why are science fiction writers so obsessed with
turning into the Messiah?) The future seems bright for an author who can
write in his Introduction (excusable because it’s funny, the first use I have
seen Mr. Silverberg make in print of his really extraordinary wit): “The
newspapers teem with the horrors that smite us: the swerving auto, the
collapsing bridge, the ptomaine in the vichyssoise, the fishhook in the filet
of sole … But … the gorgeous worst is yet to come.”
How is one to criticize a book written by two authors? Two minds were
involved in the creation of Time Rogue by Leo P. Kelley. Both may have
been the author’s, for all I know, but whoever created the extraordinarily
good characters in this book cannot possibly have created the truly idiotic
frame of the plot, nor can the writer whose characters talk real, living,
modern American (a rarity in science fiction) have written the following
account of a black revolutionary’s disillusionment:
He witnessed with sadness the fact that corruption was common to

men of every color. The leaders of the revolution he had helped to
create – those who came after his own death – still called for equality
of all but practiced a subtle inequality that favored only themselves.
Monies intended for the relief of distress, whose names were hunger
and want, found their way to steel vaults in foreign countries while
obsequious accountants hired by the revolutionary leaders wrote
false figures on command into impressive audit reports. (p. 144)
Such are the thoughts of the character who has previously spoken like this:
“And black, I say brothers, is where it’s at! Black! Do you know what
black means? It means beauty. It means we are a people of color and
I would remind you all that most of the peoples of this world are also
people of color.” (p. 46)
Mind one is responsible for a wonderful child chess-genius named Barry,

who daydreams that he’d like to be “a real King and have a castle and
ladies-in-waiting all over his court and hey, a jester! He’d have a jester
with a three-pronged cap with bells on the ends that jingled when he
hopped about and told dirty stories to make everybody laugh” (p. 31).
Barry also informs the company at one point that he knows worse words
than “ass” (p. 79):
“Hooee!” Barry cried, grinning. “I’ve heard a lot worse. I’ve used worse
words myself too. I could use words that would stand your hair on
end.”
I am also inexpressibly grateful to mind one for providing a middle-aged

lady scientist who is neither a castrating bitch nor an obsessively frustrated
virgin, but a real woman whose love and guilt for a long-dead sister (killed
in a concentration camp) is the mainspring of her character.
Mind two writes like this:
When they were all on their feet and facing the Sergeant, they began
to realize with immense relief that Caleb had at last forsaken
them. They knew that the mechanism that had been Leda had been
returned to the time from which she had come and they were aware
that the murder the Sergeant had come to investigate could never
be proven. Even if Leda’s body had been left in their own time, they
would have insisted that it was not they but the one named Caleb
who had killed her. (p. 178)
Mind one is writing a psychological novel disguised as science fiction.

Mind two provides a science fiction frame which must be read to be
disbelieved, but even this is shot through with inconsistencies and discon-
tinuities. One never quite finds out what the dickens the entity from the
future (Caleb) wants to do with the seven contemporary characters, or why
Caleb had to be driven mad, or why the dickens the computer sent after
Caleb is a beautiful sexless girl (!), or why the seven contemporary
characters can’t be murdered in a perfectly ordinary way, like hitting them
over the head with rocks. Even the reader’s sympathy is shifted, from the
Rebel Against the Cyborg Establishment (Caleb) at the beginning of the
novel to the Establishment (Leda) at the end. Nothing makes any sense.
What is ominous about Time Rogue is that Lancer seems to make a habit
REVIEWS 57
of either finding or creating these cripples. In January of 1970 I reviewed

K. M. O’Donnell’s The Empty People, also put out by Lancer; there is a distinct
similarity of style and mood between Mr. O’Donnell’s novel and Time Rogue.
Perhaps it’s only the effect of incoherence interspersed with very good
writing. Or is K. M. O’Donnell really Leo P. Kelley? Or does Lancer print
only schizophrenic authors? Both books look like novels that were quite
good until somebody or something got hold of them – whether a wicked
part of the author’s own personality or a Creative Editor, I don’t know.
Whatever it is, it ought to be stopped. The good parts of Time Rogue (that
is, most of the book) are far too good to be messed up, and as the book
stands, that is exactly what it is – not a bad book, but an inexplicable mess.
Messes win no prizes and make nobody’s reputation; books do.
Operation Ares by Gene Wolfe is going to do the author’s reputation a

disservice someday. I know what Mr. Wolfe can do when he sets his mind
to it; Ares is far below his best. It is a convincing, quiet, low-keyed, intel-
ligent book which somehow fades out into nothing. The characters are
surprisingly decent; time after time there are touches of good observation
and well-textured realism, but in the end Mr. Wolfe doesn’t really seem
to care. The book uses an interesting technique of presenting things
obliquely; big events happen offstage, and often the explanations of events
will be given long after the events themselves – I don’t mean that this is
mystification but that the significance of many things only becomes
apparent long afterwards. One of the best things in the novel is its intense
concentration on the present moment – time after time one swallows
stereotypes without realizing that’s what they are (the rational, naive
Martians, the emergency government that can only harass and annoy, the
fear of scientific “heterodoxy”). But all in all, the novel is a failure, shadowy
and inconclusive. Books like this are generally called “promising,” but by
the time you read this review, Mr. Wolfe will be as far above Operation Ares
as Ares is above the worst science fiction hack-work.
The Village Voice, September 9, 1971
Never draw pentagrams in the bathroom
The Satanists. Ed. Peter Haining (Taplinger, $5.95). The Complete Book of Magic
and Witchcraft. Kathryn Paulsen (Signet, 95¢). Practical Candle Burning.
Raymond Buckland (Llewellyn, no price). Diary of a Witch. Sybil Leek
(Signet, 75¢). Master Guide to Psychism. Harriet A. Boswell (Lancer, 95¢).
Here, Mr. Splitfoot. Robert Somerlott (Viking, $7.50)
Evil is dead. Split reason from emotion, Good from Evil; empty out your
own experience, abandon it; convince yourself that Evil has a substantive,
Manichean existence, that real excitement, real romance, real intensity,
real pleasure, are always elsewhere. The literature of Evil and Satanism is a
literature of alienation.
In Peter Haining’s The Satanists there are: “evil and perversion … creeping
insidiousness … a growing evil … bestial … debase … in the most sickening
ways … barbaric acts … notorious … their dark secrets … known perverts
… dance abandonedly in the nude … diabolical acts of sacrilege … terrible
rituals … the ultimate in degeneracy …” (pp. 14–18). What a wonderful
promise!
Good and evil, reason and emotion, deferred gratification and the
immediate moment – the splits we make in our experience try to heal
themselves while we go on acting as if they existed. Satanism is an
essentialism. In this stale but hopeful mental underground Alice Kyteler
is still a witch (Montague Summers, undated), “Jewish sorcerers” ride
again, and the Goddess of Reason is “adored by the Revolutionaries
and Parisian satanists.” Somebody, somewhere, is having a really jolly
wicked time.
Like other essentialists, Haining is allergic to history – almost nothing
in the collection is dated because, of course, it did not happen: it is always
happening. We are dealing with Sacred Time. the undated, unsupported
garbage of the two Introductions leads to a conventional collection of horror
stories, with two science-fictional specimens (paranoid rather than
Satanist). None is as good as Arthur Machen at his best, or as personal, but
there is the same beglamored sexuality, the same abundance of the gross
or unclean (toads, flies, fat flesh – often linked to male homosexuality),
the same archaic literalism, the same simple-minded religion, the same
delight in the archaic and exotic – in short, the return of the repressed.
REVIEWS 59
E. F. Benson’s “Sanctuary” locates real life in what is tittery and/or

disgusting. Algernon Blackwood’s “Ancient Sorceries” in sexuality and the
romantically archaic, H. P. Lovecraft’s “The Festival” in the revolting and
terrifying, Dennis Wheatley’s “The Black Magician” in Benson’s territory,
and August Derleth’s “Watcher from the Sky” in a bad imitation of
Lovecraft. Cleve Cartmill’s “No News Today” and Robert Bloch’s “Spawn
of the Dark One” are modern stories, the former celebrating paranoia (the
truth is dangerous and contagious and now you, the reader, have caught
it), the latter, violence (motorcycle gangs are really demons). Real life as
violence and persecution is our formula for the split and just as useless as
the old one – no amount of carrying violence or paranoia to their extremes
can disgust us with them – this is celebration.
Margaret Irwin’s “The Book” is the only non-Manichean story; evil here
is an illusion, a pathological mental state, and worst of all a rejection of
love. This is very modern, although the story is not. (Female culture
triumphs again.) The tracing of the progressive pathology is well done, as
is the kind of cheerless unpleasure the protagonist has let himself in for.
There is a piece of prose by Aleister Crowley which tells how to crucify
a frog; what is striking is not its blasphemy but the lengths to which nostalgic
humanity will go to mythologize natural objects. One catches a frog (“in
silence”), keeps it in a chest, lets it out (“with many acts of homage”), keeps
it tethered (“in apparent liberty”), speaks to it, makes promises to it,
“arrests” it, talks to it some more, then crucifies it, stabs it, takes it down
(talking all the while), and cooks and eats the legs (still talking). The idiocy
of the procedure is really extraordinary. For example, what would the frog
think of it?
Lovecraft’s story is good Lovecraft (for those whose taste runs that way)
and Blackwood’s builds up a delicately lovely atmosphere only to throw
all atmosphere away for the traditionally crude ending. “Sanctuary” and
“The Black Magician” are full of fat evil men, and flies. Bloch and Hartmill
are not at their best. As Summers says, “On occasion the devil preached a
sort of sermon, but he spoke in a low gruff voice and it was hard to hear
what he was saying” (italics mine).
Kathryn Paulsen’s Complete Book of Magic and Witchcraft is sloppy and

unbothered by footnotes, but it has a bibliography, and sources for some
of its material. The appendices do without. The book seems to be an adapted
Ph.D. thesis with footnotes removed, i.e. the historical section seems
detailed but unsupported by any evidence. We are in the same wonder-
fully cozy world in which everything has a Significant Inside, and the trivia
of daily life reveal magic correspondences with just about everything.
Ms. Paulsen equivocates about the truth of the stuff, but it is all very
colorful and detailed. There are some charming medieval anecdotes (e.g.
a Scottish schoolmaster tried a love-charm on a pupil’s sister and got a

heifer instead). It’s personal in scale – fertility, contraception, illness,
visions, luck, etc. – and one talisman “to know the secrets of war”. (The
section on astrology and the Tarot is much more concerned with public
events.) Many of the ingredients in the Paulsen recipes are hard to get –
or even recognize – and, as the author notes, “the Pentagon, which likely
would be unresponsive to ancient formulae, would rise in obedience to a
carefully developed modern ceremony.”
Raymond Buckland’s Practical Candle Burning is sub-titled ‘Spells and

Rituals for Every Purpose’. A very ethical writer (only two out of 31 spells
are even mildly destructive), Dr. Buckland is concerned solely with
personal matters – e.g. To Overcome a Bad Habit, To Heal an Unhappy
Marriage, and so on. Spells come in two forms: the “Christian Version”
and the “Old Religion version”, the latter being either Bucklandian free
verse or odd bits of poetry I can’t place (one seems to be a translation from
the Greek), and the former, mashed Biblical verses, e.g. “I trusted also in
the Lord; slide therefore shall not I.” The 23rd Psalm (deformed) is used
several times. Dr. Buckland is angry at those who want to practice evil
magic and makes their use of it next to impossible; you too can make a
“Hand of Glory” – if you “take the right or left hand of a felon who is
hanging from a gibbet beside a highway …” Dr. Buckland is “director of
the only Museum of Witchcraft and Magic in the United States” (unlocated,
page v) and “a reviewer of witchcraft books for this country’s largest occult
magazine” (unnamed, page v). Dr. Buckland has opened a new field for
poets – “the most effective words would be spontaneous ones from your
heart.”
Sybil Leek’s Diary of a Witch is a chatty, glowy success story of the most
banal kind, with the usual sloppiness and vagueness. None of these books
except Somerlott’s has the slightest idea about what public events or
personages are important or why, e.g. “Philosophers such as Plato,
Aristotle, Hume, Kant, have all been influenced by reincarnation.”
Anonymous persons abound: “It is no coincidence that many psychologists
are beginning to study astrology” (italics mine). Mrs. Leek defines “retro-
grade” without reference to astronomy. “African leaders,” “Persian ladies,”
and a descendant of Catherine the Great come to see her, although
“Enlightenment … is not easy to live with in a world that derides beautiful
things and thinks only in terms of material needs.” She gets into awful hot
water trying to reconcile astrology and free will, and is apparently unaware
that anyone else has ever thought about the problem before.
REVIEWS 61
Except for the possibly significant facts that her childhood home was
matriarchal (she makes a similar point about witchcraft), that she luckily
did not spend much time in school, and was therefore able to go her own
way, Mrs. Leek’s personal life does not fare much better in the book. There
is the period of trial obligatory in this sort of memoir (her landlord cancels
her lease in the New Forest), the piety (“she must personally strive to out-
balance evil with good”), the profundities (“all scientific experiments have
a positive and negative aspect – for example, the splitting of the atom”), the
various incidents of precognition or healing, all small-scale and all involving
anonymous persons, and in general the minutiae of a life whose meaning
has vanished in print, like a piece of seaweed taken out of the ocean.
There are hints of a romantic youth (reading Shakespeare in the New
Forest with the gypsies), a colorful family, and one piece of wit: her
schoolmistress says, “The bathroom is not the place to draw pentagrams; it
worries the maids.” H. G. Wells came to visit, and Aleister Crowley, who
is interestingly described as an unhappy and arrogant Romantic artist.
Perhaps even bad writers can express some of the fragrance of childhood,
or perhaps there is something about the occult that flattens and de-
concretizes actual historical incidents.
In Harriet A. Boswell’s Master Guide to Psychism everything is true: telepathy,

ESP auras, sensitivity, tea-leaf reading, physical mediumship, apports,
precognition and premonition, telekinesis, table tilting, automatic writing,
reincarnation, astral projection, possession, psychometry, psychic photog-
raphy, and the fourth dimension. You can also talk to plants. Ms. Boswell
receives “beautifully worded philosophy” through her Ouija board, such
as, “There is no night so dark that God’s love cannot light it, no burden so
heavy that His strength will not ease it, and no error so grave that His grace
cannot forgive.” “Eminent names” such as “authors, lecturers, scientists,
theologians, and so on” are serious psychic investigators. Well-known
authors like Victor Hugo, Goethe, Sardou, Charles Linton, and Mrs. Lenore
Piper wrote their books by automatic writing. Some of “the great people”
who believed in reincarnation were Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire (!), Carlyle,
Walt Whitman, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Luther Burbank.
Ms. Boswell finds an alien (sans aura) at a friend’s house (p. 72). If you
look at yourself in the mirror until your eyes blur, you will see your aura
(p. 59). There are lots of accurate ancient predictions on record (p. 77).
Put a very dim red light under people’s faces in a dark room and you will
see traces of their past incarnations (p. 135).
Unnamed places and anonymous cases abound. As in magic, everything
has a marvelous and significant Inside, but at least magic concretizes itself
in physical objects or words; here is a world in which nothing and every-
thing can be proved, in which everything has somehow been reduced to

trivia, like daydreams or reveries separated from the daydreamer whose
concrete experience gives them life. Again, life, is elsewhere – we are back
in an apolitical, acultural, static, trivial world of essences.
Robert Somerlott has written a dry, ironic, tired, well-researched history

of modern occultism, i.e., the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Ladies
predominate in Here, Mr. Splitfoot, there is a bibliography, an index, and a
wealth of facts, but no real notes. Those who want such information will
like it, but who the dickens will pay $7.50 for it? Mr Somerlott finds some
of his material incredible, some of it possible. He works hard.
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, November 1971
The Dialectic of Sex. Shulamith Firestone (Bantam, $1.25). Abyss. Kate

Wilhelm (Doubleday, $4.95). The Light Fantastic. Ed. Harry Harrison
(Scribner’s, $5.95). Partners in Wonder. Harlan Ellison (collaborations with
various authors) (Walker, $8.95). The Day After Judgment. James Blish
(Doubleday, $4.95)
It’s long been a truism of our field that science fiction is better at gadgets
than people. Unfortunately the truism is also a truth. Our social extrapo-
lation is pretty much in the state technical extrapolation used to be – one
change projected into the future without the (necessarily) accompanying
changes in everything else. Even the supposed innovations in social
structure almost always turn out to be regressive – e.g. Heinlein’s family
system in Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a patriarchal, patrilocal “stem” family
very like those of the middle ages, with the added feature of droit du seigneur
for the men (in order of seniority). None of this is new.
The most exciting social extrapolation around nowadays can be found
in The Dialectic of Sex by Shulamith Firestone. You will have a hard time
with this book if you believe that Capitalism is God’s Way or that Manly
REVIEWS 63
Competition is the Law of the Universe – but then you can go back to
reading The Skylark of Valeron or whatever and forget about the real future.
Firestone is a radical, a feminist, a Marxist (or rather, a thinker who has
absorbed both Marx and Freud) and the author of a tough, difficult,
analytic, fascinating book. In her extrapolated future:
There will be no distinction between the political and the personal.

There will be no split between sex and emotion.
The dichotomy of emotion vs. reason will vanish.
The technological and the aesthetic will merge. High art will disappear.
In fact, culture as we know it will vanish, to be replaced by serious play
and direct satisfaction.
Childhood, a fairly recent invention, will vanish.
The family will “die” – that is, the parental role will be diffused to
everybody, just as the “feminine” role will be diffused to everybody.
Children will be compensated by society for their physical weakness
and their inexperience.
Artificial reproduction will be available as an option (it is very close to
being possible right now).
Racial caste arises from the paradigm of caste embodied in the family;
with the creation of an androgynous world, racism will disappear. The
psychology of power, whose source is the biological family, will disappear.
There will be no distinction between child society and adult society,
male cultural experience and female cultural experience; in fact, sexuality
will become polymorphous-perverse, thus taking the compulsiveness out
of it and uniting it with all love and all play.
There is a good short history of the woman’s suffrage movement, a fine

analysis of the connection between opposition to population control and
the chauvinism of the private family (“private bid for immortality”), a good
explanation of scientific schizophrenia and Snow’s two cultures, a short
history of childhood (which began only a few centuries ago), and some
fascinating alternatives to the family which recall much of Samuel Delany’s
fiction. To say, for example, that children are oppressed as a class seems
absurd, but consider:
Children must be living embodiments of happiness … it is every

parent’s duty to give his child a childhood to remember … This is the
Golden Age that the child will remember when he grows up …
“minors” under the law without civil rights, the property of an
arbitrary set of parents … economic dependence … It is clear that
the myth of childhood happiness flourishes so wildly not because it
satisfies the needs of children but because it satisfies the needs of

adults … (pp. 93–95)
Within a century, she says, if we don’t blow ourselves up.
The two novellas that make up Kate Wilhelm’s Abyss are flawed, the first
(“The Plastic Abyss”) because it attempts more than most successes and
the second (“Stranger in the House”) because of Wilhelm’s entirely original
set of virtues and defects.
As George Orwell has pointed out, most human “worlds” are not repre-
sented in art at all, for to be a member of such a world demands that one
not be an artist. Orwell’s example is Kipling, who managed somehow to
become a full member of colonial Anglo-Indian society and yet keep enough
of an antithetical self alive to report well on that same society. Not only to
describe but also to embody in oneself a world-view that leaves no room
for art takes quite a lot of doing.
Kate Wilhelm is an escapee from the feminine mystique. As Shulamith
Firestone points out, women and men live in different cultures though
neither group knows it – men consider the male experience to be the only
reality, and so do women, who therefore distort and deny their own
experience. Until recently we have had of the female experience only
versions sentimentalized and distorted in the service of self-glorification
and the status quo. Good women artists have generally had atypical experi-
ences; as a friend of mine put it, they’ve brought themselves up as men,
since “man”– in the general view – was the equivalent of “human.”1 Like
Kipling, Kate Wilhelm manages to be both an artist and the voice of an
experience that is defined by its not having a voice. To find a voice one must
move out of this culture and yet stay in it; Wilhelm almost does this. “The
Plastic Abyss” is the eerie fusion of women’s-magazine “reality” and real
reality, as if sentimental pictures had suddenly begun to move and speak.
There is a tall, glamorous, hard, patronizing husband in “The Plastic Abyss”
who is breathtakingly close to the Ideal Husband of bad fiction; there is the
Sweet, Ideal, Passive Wife of romance who almost makes it into artistic
definition; and there is the magnificently irresponsible playing-around
with reality only possible to those who don’t have the conventional stake
in it and are therefore wise enough not to believe in it. Still, there are
vestiges of un-ironic cardboard. The heroine of “Plastic Abyss” says she
“should go back to work, back to writing articles, to traveling, prying,
learning” although it is perfectly clear from her character that she has never
done any of those things; the heroine of “Stranger” has a “fashion” job that
1 E.g. myself and Anne McCaffrey.

REVIEWS 65
is never made real to her or anybody else. There is a stepdaughter in “Plastic”

who (we are told) will do better than the heroine, although her situation
is in no way different. There is a Nice Young Painter who is something of
a nebbish but otherwise rather sketchily realized. There is a patronizing
Good Old Man who is as much of a sexist as the Bad Husband, though
Wilhelm doesn’t think so. The Bad Husband is put down by the Good Old
Man and The Real Scientist, not by his wife, who remains passive and
dependent throughout. She escapes from her dependency, her childishness
and her husband only by jumping clean out of reality. She then finds out
that she’s the one who’s controlling everybody else. “Stranger” is more
conventional and easier to follow, although again the women (and the
young people) are more alert to what’s going on than the men and readier
to believe in what is real but strange. Wilhelm gets her second heroine’s
husband out of the way by giving him a bad heart medically; the husband
of “Plastic Abyss” has a bad heart humanly. I was struck in both novellas
by what seemed to me the unearned adulation given to both women, but
I wonder if this simply reflects our not being used to feminine protagonists
who are involved in real activity. Most male protagonists in s.f. are glorified
(or unrealized) in exactly the same way. It seems to be an occupational
hazard. “Plastic Abyss” is much farther along the road to realized Wilhelm
than “Stranger,” which dates from 1967. Both stories use rhythms of
narrative quite unlike those of slick fiction; the earlier tale proceeds jerkily
through some awful bloopers (“When the planet had been discovered,
Earth year 1896, Gron year 14,395, the excitement on Gron had been
rampant”) to a very moving ending; Wilhelm – luckily for her – has art but
no conventional craft. Some of the writing is fine (“Gary’s pale hair and
the doctor’s thin face side by side like a Dali distortion, facets of the same
thing, and that thing not what she had always called man before”), some
of it oddly unnecessary (“She had knocked over her wineglass, and sherry
was spreading across the glossy surface of the table,” italics mine).
Knowing my radical Feminist tendencies, the Kindly Editor sent me only good
books (by men) this month. Harry Harrison’s The Light Fantastic, subtitled
“Science Fiction Classics from the Mainstream,” is a fine, if partly an obvious,
collection and reminds one what definitive treatment of a theme can be –
from the last phrase of Anthony Burgess’s “The Muse” (“not blotting a line”)
to the hand of God knocking on the woman’s sleazy soul in C. S. Lewis’s “The
Shoddy Lands”: “It was in some curious way, soft; ‘soft as wool and sharp
as death’, soft but unendurably heavy, as if at each blow some enormous
hand fell on the outside of the Shoddy Sky and covered it completely. And
with that knocking came a voice at whose sound my bones turned to water:
‘Child, child, child, let me in before the night comes’” (p. 213).
I have some quibbles: Leo Szilard’s charming but slight “The Mark Gable
Foundation;” Gerald Kersh’s “The Unsafe Deposit Box,” with its large,
logical hole; Kingsley Amis’s “Something Strange,” a good early example
of a theme that is somewhat too familiar by now; and the too-thin “The
Door” by E. B. White (1939). There remain: “Sold to Satan” by Mark Twain,
Graham Greene’s “The End of the Party”, Borges’ “The Circular Ruins,”
“The Shout” by Robert Graves, E. M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops,” John
Cheever’s “The Enormous Radio” and that splendid tale of Kipling’s, “The
Finest Story in the World.” There is an extremely good introduction by
James Blish. All in all, a fine collection.
On page 297 of Harlan Ellison’s Partners in Wonder is a William Rotsler

drawing of King Kong on top of the Empire State building, holding a squidgy
little Fay Wray in his fist. Only her head is visible. Someone down on the
sidewalk is screaming, “Trip him, Fay, trip him!” For me the cherry-and-
whipped-cream of Ellison’s anthologies is this quality in his introductions,
for example, “Base canard is the bottom duck in a beachside pyramid of
athletic French ducks” or “If trolley cars had wings, would elephants have
overhead runners?” Through the whole book runs the strangest sweetness
of triumphant, loving absurdity, of mind taking off into the wild blue.
Ellison is hung up on words and the small details of existence, just as an
artist should be. “Countenances” he writes; “(conteni? contenubim?)”
Ellison’s mode, in both reportage and fiction, is hyperbole – in dramatic terms,
extremity – so that he is always operating either on the absurd or the desperate
edge of experience. Partners is a very good collection and would be a good
collection even without the introductory material; to say that most of the
stories don’t exist on the same level as the best of the introductions is hardly
dispraise; in fact, some of the former are first-rate. Moreover (and this is rare
in anthologies) they reinforce one another, so that the book benefits from
the cumulative effect. The newest stories are better, the best of them being,
to my mind, the Ellison/Sheckley “I See a Man Sitting on a Chair and the
Chair Is Biting His Leg,” which seems much more coherent in this setting
than in F & SF, where it was previously published; Ellison’s “Prowler in the
City at the Edge of the World” which is at the top of the collection; the fierce
and sentiment-full “Song the Zombie Sang” (Ellison and Silverberg); and the
Ellison/Zelazny “Come to Me Not in Winter’s White,” a lyrical fairy tale (no
pun intended) haunted by the ghost of a banal triangle – as every once in a
while the skeletons of Zelazny’s own stories show through the flesh. There
is tremendous motion in all of these – Ellison’s contribution, insofar as I can
figure it – which is not far, for the stories are all seamless, except for
Ellison/Laumer’s “Street Scene” in which the patchwork-quilt effect is delib-
erate and quite funny. Other collaborations include “Brillo” with Ben Bova;
REVIEWS 67
Robert Bloch’s “A Toy for Juliette” (which sparked Ellison’s “Prowler”); “Up
Christopher to Madness” with Avram Davidson, which may contain too
much Damon Runyon but which I found a pleasant romp; “The Kong
Papers,” which is a delightful fribble drawn by Bill Rotsler and worded (?)
by Ellison; and with A. E. Van Vogt a surprisingly vivid treatment of a familiar
theme in “The Human Operators.” The Ellison/Delany collaboration, “The
Power of the Nail,” does not quite come together nor does the scattered
“Runesmith” with Theodore Sturgeon (besides, sf writers ought to resist the
temptation to make their heroes turn into The Messiah). Others – quite at
the level of most sf anthologies – are collaborations with Joe L. Hensley
(1962), Henry Slesar (1959), and Algis Burdrys (1957).
James Blish continues his exploration of ethics, theology, and medieval

magic in The Day After Judgment. The book is a sequel to Armageddon, which
ended the earlier Black Easter, and attempts to answer the question: After
the death of God, what? The condensation is as fine as ever, the morality
as stringent, and the keen, dry, exhilarating atmosphere of Blish’s intel-
lectuality is a pleasure of the first order. Everything in the book is as distinct
and clear as an object painted by Giotto. The very syntax is brilliant and
the characterization as solid as outside analysis can make it – take a look
at General Willis McKnight’s encounter with the image of Satanachia and
his subsequent insanity (later he decides that the demon prince is
something worse; i.e. Fu Manchu) or the gem of bad reasoning in which
Jack Ginsberg blames God for the end of the world. Blish is in his element
here, and even his limitations work for him. The Day After Judgment (with
Black Easter, for they should be read together) is – if I’m not mistaken –
close to being a masterpiece. It’s my uninstructed impression that relative
financial independence has allowed Blish to write more idiosyncratically
than he ever did before, about themes he knows may not interest large
numbers of readers. Both books, like Blish’s beautiful Doctor Mirabilis, are
absolutely sui generis. Judgment’s solution of the problem of evil is less
overwhelmingly dramatic than the catastrophe of Black Easter, probably
unavoidably so. I find the masque-like Miltonics at the end both crabb’d
and pedantique but am willing to allow that the author had reasons I do
not see. The magic is as fine as ever, particularly the means by which the
characters rendezvous in the last chapter: airplanes, transvection, and
ecstatic trance-levitation. Hell is “an incombustible Alexandrian library of
… evasions,” in Ware’s ruined palazzo “the window panes were out, and
the ceiling dripped; the floor was invisible under fallen plaster, broken glass
and anonymous dirt; and in the gabinetto the toilet was pumping continu-
ously as though trying to flush away the world.”
We’re lucky to have the book.
College English, 33:3, December 1971
The Shape of Utopia: Studies in a Literary Genre. Robert C. Elliott (University

of Chicago Press, 1970, 158pp., $6.50). Into the Unknown: The Evolution of
Science Fiction from Francis Godwin to H. G. Wells. Robert M. Philmus
(University of California Press, 1970, 174pp., $6.95)
Science fiction is receiving more academic attention than it used to, a

species of kindness that may turn out to be the equivalent of being nibbled
to death by ducks. For reasons nobody seems to understand, voyages to
the moon fascinate academicians, as does anything written before 1800,
or satire, or Utopian fiction – in short, anything that avoids the fecundity
and speculative wildness of twentieth-century science fiction. It is probably
a question of what’s manageable, but unfortunately voyages to the moon
tend to be the oldest (often the dullest) kind of science fiction, and Utopian
romances are not only secondary in the contemporary oeuvre, they are
relatively unimportant.
Robert C. Elliott’s The Shape of Utopia is a scattered collection of pleasant,
modest, clearly written essays, none of which treats its subject with any
complexity. There is much in the book that is just, much that turns into
truism if you look at it twice, and not really enough to tie the essays together
into one volume. Much is stated without being explored or fully described;
much is mentioned or proposed without being done. For example, Elliott
twice brings up a rather important topic – what’s the relation of the teller
of these tales to the author, of More to “More” (in More’s Utopia), or
Coverdale to Hawthorne (Blithedale Romance)? What did More think of
communism, for example? One must, says Elliott, avoid “a priori judgments
and listen … to the voices as they speak”; but if one does, he concludes:
I think it very doubtful that we can ever know what he, in his many
conflicting roles of philosopher, moralist, religious polemicist, man
of great affairs – what this man “really” believed about communism.
Of Thomas More, author of Utopia, we can speak with confidence.
The idea attracted him strongly … Utopia argues for the ideal of
communism by the best test available: More has given to Raphael
Hythloday all the good lines. Thus the shape of Utopia is finished off,
enigmatically but firmly … (pp. 47f)
But in the middle of this, the relation of “More” to More gets lost.
REVIEWS 69
Throughout, Elliott promises more than he delivers. There is, for

example, the connection between satire and Utopia, which Elliott calls
genetic, but which seems to me to be somewhat forced; there is the topic
of the distribution of negative and positive elements in Utopian fiction
which is never explored at length or much used as an analytical tool; there
is the question of why satires and Utopias are so often framed by “an
encounter between a satirist and an adversary” (p. 23) which is not
answered; there is the fascinating suggestion that the proper mode of
Utopian fiction is lyric (“the idyll as Schiller describes it,” p. 107), an idea
which unfortunately remains unelaborated and unexplored.
In short, there are scattered insights all through (like Elliott’s definition
of “anti-Utopia,” the modern nightmare of the bad place which is bad
because it is somebody else’s ghastly Utopia, typically the Grand Inquisitor’s).
But the insights are not bound into any coherent theory, nor does most of
the book go beyond descriptive detail. The last three studies, “The Fear of
Utopia,” “Aesthetics of Utopia,” and “Anti-Anti-Utopia” do constitute more
of a connected argument, as well as marking the historical change from
“longing” to “possibility” – a lovely distinction Elliott mentions only once
(p. 85) and promptly drops for ever. “The Fear of Utopia” centers on the
fear of progress (due to a perceived incompatibility between freedom and
happiness); “Anti-Anti-Utopia” deals with the contemporary reaction
against this fear in favor of happy unfreedom; and “Aesthetics of Utopia”
deals largely with the aesthetic flaws of Utopian fiction, which Elliott
suspects are inherent in the genre.
All the above are adequate and what one might call minimally intel-
ligent, but I don’t find in them anything out of the commonplace – perhaps
the penalty of the author’s ignoring modern science fiction, or R. D. Laing,
or Wittgenstein, or critics like Samuel Delany1 (criticism of modern science
fiction is squirrelled away in ghetto periodicals, like so much else about
the genre). In connection with Hawthorne, Elliott picks up “idea-as-hero”
(“‘background’ takes on independent life,” p. 83), connecting it with the
historical novel but ignoring its vast importance for science fiction – the
variety of ways in which modern science fiction handles this problem might
be prescriptive for Utopian fiction. As in science fiction, the technical
problem of exposition takes up the bulk of the book, “the central element”
as Elliott calls it, one which has “baffled even the best writers” (p. 109).
Elliott seems to waver between perceiving Utopian fiction as sui generis, not
1 See, for example, “About Five Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Five
Words,” in Extrapolation (newsletter of the Conference on Science Fiction of the
MLA), ed. Thomas Clareson, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, May 1969,
Vol. X, No. 2.
to be judged by the same standards as other fiction (pp. 110ff), and the
view that this is precisely what’s wrong with it – it’s a “bastard form,” it’s
inescapably thin (p. 116), it cannot tolerate fully developed characters (pp.
116, 121) and so on. There is also “the ancient and notorious problem of
depicting the good” (p. 117). “Health,” says Elliott, quoting Swift, “is but
one thing and has been always the same” (p. 117). Whether the good is
in itself “stupefyingly boring” (p. 119) or whether “we lack … conventions
for depicting man in a happy state” (p. 120), Utopian fiction seems to be
committed to dullness. Moreover, it may be possible (this ties in with “Fear
of Utopia”) that “happiness … cannot accommodate instability” (p. 125)
and that Utopia is incompatible with art, an incompatibility that retroac-
tively blights Utopian fiction (to be fair, Elliott doesn’t say this).
I’m afraid I find the discussion rather routine. Certainly the aesthetics
of didactic romance will differ from those of literature with more
commitment to mimesis and – as in science fiction, which is also a didactic
and non-mimetic kind of romance (at least by intention) – the intel-
lectual/moral content must function aesthetically.2 But it’s not nearly
enough just to say that Utopian fiction is a bastard form and therefore
difficult. I also think it’s a mistake to conceive of the aesthetic problem as
one of expressing lyric matter in narrative-dramatic form. Brecht and Shaw
have both dealt with the problem of the aesthetics of didacticism. Non-
Utopian science fiction seems to be developing all sorts of ways of dealing
with lyric (or “static” material), which Utopian novelists might well imitate.
After all, finding out is itself a process, and perception is an act. Samuel
Delany believes that in modern fiction the center of narrative interest has
switched from the passions to the perceptions;3 if this is true, it might well
rescue Utopian fiction. And it’s possible to see the irruption of the lyric
mode into prose narrative as typical of what has been called the post-
realistic novel.
Talking of Utopian fiction (or science fiction) inevitably involves one in
all sorts of extra-literary speculations. It seems to me that Elliott’s extra-
literary armory is pretty meager and that his discussion of freedom vs.
happiness (“The Fear of Utopia” and “Anti-Anti-Utopia”) suffers thereby.
Only at the very end does the last essay attain to considerable complexity.
“Huxley,” says Elliott, “has no command of the celebratory style” (p. 152,
italics mine); “the Palanese have created a society in which it is not a profa-
2 I am indebted to Alexei Panshin, science fiction novelist and author of Heinlein

in Dimension (Advent Press, Chicago, 1967), the first full-dress study of any
writer in the field. See his series of theoretical essays printed in Galaxy monthly
during 1971.
3 Samuel Delany, in conversation.
REVIEWS 71
nation to be happy” (p. 153, italics mine). Elliott seizes in both those signif-
icant words more complication than he ever allows himself in his explicit
discussion of the issues. Again: “But whereas the Grand Inquisitor demands
a great act of abnegation from those who would be of his party, Skinner offers
us a lollipop” (p. 153, italics mine). Happy unfreedom as an act of
abnegation seems to me an extraordinary insight into what is really going
on under our fallacious reasoning about happiness vs. freedom.
On the other hand, in the body of the essay Elliott seems to accept
without much demur the idea that freedom always leads to unhappiness,
that happiness is substance, not process, that harmony does not admit of
idiosyncrasy, that equilibrium is always static and never dynamic. These
are not only routine; they’re wrong. When existentialists start writing
Utopias, when perception is commonly seen as a dynamic process (and so
on and so on) we can step out of Elliott’s double-bind without trouble –
double-binds (as R. D. Laing says) can’t be solved in their own terms; one
can only get out of the terms.
I suppose the book is a good introduction to Utopian fiction, and it claims
neither to be a history of the genre nor a treatment of the ideologies of
various Utopian novels. It is a mine of scattered questions and biblio-
graphical references. But much is unoriginal and much of the analysis has
been surpassed elsewhere, sometimes in very unlikely places. I find it not
enough, as Ivan the Terrible said after the boyars had their heads chopped
off; he had something nicer in mind: more boyars’ heads. More boyars’
heads follow.
Robert M. Philmus’s Into the Unknown is almost as hard to review as it was

to read. Professor Philmus’s sources are unimpeachable, he is stuffed to
the gills with obscure erudition, he has read more than anyone could
reasonably be expected to read in ten lifetimes; but what good is all this
when it is embodied in language that only God can understand? More than
that, Professor Philmus’s logic at times defies me (or anybody else, I think);
he seems to make literary points by a process of knocking down straw men
– that is, he mentions A, brings in B by a process of sheer association (thus
implying sub rosa that A and B are similar), finds that they are not similar
– behold, a point! But they never were; they were only associated via some
middle term chosen almost arbitrarily. An example:
To appreciate the nature of the antlike Selenites and their highly

organized society in The First Men in the Moon, it is relevant to compare
them with what in some respects they are not – the conquering ants
of Wells’ short story, “The Empire of the Ants” – and thereby to
determine what in The First Men is mythically new for Wells. (p. 144)
What is “mythically new” is that the conquering ants are unorganized and
sinister, whereas the “Antlike Selenites” are specialized, social, intelligent,
and benevolent – i.e. there is no similarity between the two except Wells’
use of the term “antlike.” No further conclusions are drawn. Here’s another,
from a discussion of Capek’s play R.U.R.
They [the humans] eventually find that they can no longer control
the situation that they have brought about and are as caught up in
the mechanical logic of events as the “robots” over whom they are
supposed to have mastery. The entrepreneurs in R.U.R., Rossum’s
successors, thus face essentially the same predicament as the people
in the mechanized subterranean world of E. M. Forster’s The Machine
Stops. “Year by year [the machine] was served with increased
efficiency and decreased intelligence. The better a man knew his own
duties upon it, the less he understood the duties of his neighbor, and
in all the world there was not one who understood the monster as
a whole.” (p. 157)
The “mechanical logic of events” here is a robot revolution – in fact the

“logic of events” is precisely given as not mechanical; it is the robots’
becoming emotional and “human” which causes the revolution.
Furthermore, this revolution is hardly the “same predicament” as that of
The Machine Stops. In Forster’s story the machine breaks down because
nobody knows how to repair it; in Capek’s play the downtrodden robots
revolt and take over the world. I do not see what is “essentially the same”
here, except that people and machinery are involved in both stories.
Perhaps the manuscript for the book underwent drastic condensation
or rewriting. English sentences usually have internal signposts that tell you
where the sentence is going logically and syntactically, but in Philmus’s
prose, as in a country at war, all the signposts have been turned wrong-
way-to, to deceive the enemy. Here are some results:
These works satirically dramatize accepted ideas and ideals, reducing

them to near absurdity by depicting their consequences as cosmic
principles or demonstrating their partiality by embodying as myth
“the opposite idea.” (p. 27)
But beyond their reliance on explicit scientific explanations or the

(usually implicit) metaphors of natural philosophy, some of these
voyages can serve as rudimentary examples of how, by extending
the range and detail of human experience and enlarging and multi-
plying the concepts that order that experience, science can influence
the form of the fantasy. (p. 52)
REVIEWS 73
But by perceiving right away the reality that the fiction displaces,
one discounts the fact the Gulliver insists his Travels is a record of
what he has actually seen and undergone. (p. 5)
To say that there is a kind of logic operative in L’Autre Monde – princi-

pally a logic of association – and that the mostly explicit arguments
set forth in Dyrcona’s voyage to the moon prepare for, and help to
elucidate, their allegorical counterparts in the voyage to the sun does
not contradict the view that L’Autre Monde is satiric fantasy. (p. 130)
There is sense under this awful stuff. Professor Philmus works hard to
show that science fiction is about something and that writers read their
predecessors’ works. He recognizes that science fiction is not simply fantasy
(p. vii), that it deals with metaphors turned into literal realities (the
“displacement” he speaks of, I think) and that it is connected with the
scientific thought of its period. He does not get beyond describing rather
obvious similarities between works and considers so many different ones
that none can be treated in detail; he usually has room only for a re-telling
of the story and a few generalizations. The scattered essays have been given
beginnings and endings that attempt to hook them onto each other, usually
unsuccessfully. There is good – and new – material here for a theory of
science fiction (“the mythic displacement of ‘existing circumstances’ and
tendencies as they are projected into the dimension of ‘prophecy,’” p. 78)
but the style is so barbarous, the construction so haphazard, and the
arguments so exceedingly hard to follow, that one might as well give up.
There is accurate and evasive praise from Isaac Asimov printed on the
cover.
Moderan. David R. Bunch (Avon, 75¢). The Falling Astronauts. Barry N.

Malzberg (Ace, 75¢). In the Pocket and Other SF Stories and Gather in the Hall
of the Planets. K. M. O’Donnell (Ace double, 75¢). Humanity Prime. Bruce
McAllister (Ace, 95¢). The Committed Men. M. John Harrison (Doubleday,
$4.95). Pig World. Charles W. Runyon (Doubleday, $4.95). Can You Feel
Anything When I Do This? Robert Shackley (Doubleday, $4.95)
We all know that Reason is superior to Emotion. (After all, look where it’s
got us.) And that souls ride inside bodies, like people inside Edsels, right?
And that Edsels often break down, leaving us to cry like Saint Paul, Who
will deliver me from the body of this death? I have actually met engineers
who told me (in all sincerity) that they lived their lives according to the
dictates of Reason, and when I got them enraged – which is easy to do –
they told me I was irrational. In Love and Will Rollo May describes a patient
of his, a chemist, who had invented the perfect daydream erection: a metal
pipe extending from his brain directly through his penis. The rest of his
body was irrelevant.
There has to be a division of labor here, since it is not so easy to throw
away your fleshliness, your vulnerability, your emotions, your mortality,
your passivity, and your knowledge that you are an object in a world of
objects (try falling downstairs). Thus we find Man the Rational and Woman
the Emotional, Man the Soul and Woman the Carnal, Man the Active and
Woman the Passive, Man as Humanity and Woman as Nature, Man as
Strong and Woman as Weak, Man as Tool-maker and Woman as Man-
admirer, Man as Political and Woman as Home-oriented. Every man
deserves the freedom to have his own abortion. Man bears his young alive.
Man is the only animal who menstruates.
David Bunch, a loud, crude good poet, has come up with Moderan, a
half-novel, half-collection-of-stories about what it is like to live out the
male mystique. Mind and body could not be more split. If you are really
somebody in Moderan, you are 97 percent new-steel and only 3 percent
flesh; you spend your time as the master of a Stronghold (which runs itself
anyway) playing war games with other Strongholds, thinking Deep
Thoughts in your hip-snuggle chair (it is kind of hard to walk, somehow,
if you’re new-metal) and perhaps delectating your aesthetic sensibilities
with the tin flowers that pop up through the metal-covered floor of the
world at the touch of a button, or noticing the change of seasons by changes
REVIEWS 75
in the color of the sky (they rotate the sky very punctually in Moderan).
True, there are problems; as Mr. Bunch notes:
… it was envisaged that a few outstanding, special wives might be

“replaced” and allowed to share the Stronghold forever-life … there
were, on science grounds, long and bitterly contested debates as to
whether any female of the species would be strong enough to stand
that nine-months’ battery of the “replacement” operations. Finally,
in a spirit of benevolent bravado and what-the-hell charity and
choice, the panel, all men, and all great new-metal scientists … and
all, so it chanced, bachelors, said … (p. 62)
Terrified Stronghold Masters receive letters beginning “Greetings” (this

is a very funny book) but as the narrator says, “Moderan was man country,”
and the wives end up in a high-walled, maximum-security prison called
White Witch Valley.
Death has been licked at last. Stronghold Masters never die, although
Strongholds fall. There are robot mistresses with “blue eyes, blue-bulb blue
and like small glass globes sliced carefully.” Armed with Wump Bombs,
“high, shrieking wreck-wrecks,” Honest Jakes, walking doll-bombs, and
White Witch rockets, there is safety indeed.
So of course the inhabitants of Moderan are terrified over and over and
over again. They spend eternity in fear.
The author knows what he’s about. There are sly references to Mailer
and Hemingway upon the arrival of the new-metal mistress in her carton
and excelsior (she later flees the hero, apparently out of boredom),
penis-machines that batter down the earth at the beginning of the book
(“huge black cylinders swung spinning between gigantic thighs and
calves of metal”) so that new-metal can cover the earth from pole to
pole, with no soft spots. There is even soul power (pp. 229ff) and the hero’s
very familiar pique when – at the end of the book – he unleashes his great,
final bomb, the Grandy Wump, only to find that everybody else has got
one, too:
Not only had they stolen my secret, but vile, vile to the last and
plotting, apparently they had installed detective devices to steal my
moment of firing! (p. 229)
Part II, “Everyday Life in Moderan,” seems to be made up of earlier

stories; it is not perfectly integrated with Parts I and III.1 Note: of all the
1 Credits for individual stories go back to 1959.

flesh-bums still alive in Moderan, the only genuinely willful, hating-loving,

human is a four-year-old girl:
It was in Jingle-Bell weather that Little Sister came across the white
yard, the snow between her toes all gray and packed and starting to
ball up like the beginnings of two snowmen. For clothing she had
nothing, her tiny rump sticking out red-cold and blue-cold, and her
little jewel knees white almost as bones. (p. 166)
Five-year-old Little Brother spends his time weight-lifting and thinking

about rockets, jets, and space. He will grow up to live out his new-metal
immortality in impoverishment and terror, as does everyone else in this
beautiful, “dense” (don’t read too much at once), and vividly fantastic book.
But as Father says, “could one ever think too much about rockets and jets
and space?” (p. 170).
The protagonist of Barry Malzberg’s The Falling Astronauts knows you can. He
has gone mad doing so. The real name of the game is depersonalization.
Like Rollo May’s patient, Mr. Malzberg’s astronaut can only copulate with his
wife if he imagines them both to be machines; and again, the only character
in the book who knows something is wrong is the wife, although she cannot
quite explain what it is. What is astonishing about this novel is not that
the protagonist (the point-of-view character) is mad, but that everyone else
is, too. It is eerie to listen to a mad madman being interviewed by a “sane”
madman in a world where any pretense to “rationality” is the maddest
thing of all. Mr. Malzberg uses (and perceives) NASA as Big Government,
the quintessential split between emotion and reason. In the lucidity of his
own insanity, the hero says quite sensibly, on the last page but one:
“It won’t work, don’t you see? It won’t work. It’s just too late and
all meant to be this way because this is the way you wanted it. This
is what you built and you’re just going to have to take the full conse-
quences …” (p. 190)
The consequences are the end of the world.

The Falling Astronauts resembles “Still-life” in Harlan Ellison’s Again,
Dangerous Visions. (I am glad to announce, for the sake of clearing up my
own confusion, that Barry Malzberg is K. M. O’Donnell.) The theme
benefits from the comparative roominess of the novel, but the book also
seems to become somewhat repetitive, as if Mr. Malzberg suffered from
that curse of all freelance writers: lack of time. (Not time to write, but most
importantly, time to think or just do nothing.) Nevertheless The Falling
Astronauts is a good book.
REVIEWS 77
Also cursed with silly jackets and sillier blurbs are two other good books
by O’Donnell-Malzberg: In the Pocket and Other SF Stories and Gather in the
Hall of the Planets (one Ace double, a bargain). Without anybody’s noticing
it – except Theodore Sturgeon, in a recent review – Mr. Malzberg has
sneaked up on us as a fine writer. The Ace double also suffers from some
unevenness, in parts sloppy, in parts poignant, sometimes brilliant, though
not as finished as Astronauts. Planets is the better half (it’s about a science
fiction convention in 1974). I especially liked ice-cubes “whisking” down
a woman’s dress like “silvery fish.”
Humanity Prime is Bruce McAllister’s first novel and a promising one,

although a good deal of the story does not cohere scientifically. Mr.
McAllister seems to have worked in the way least common in s.f. – that is,
the experience of the strange world/strange people came first and the scien-
tific rationale later. I assume this because the local color of Mr. McAllister’s
water-dwelling humans is very well rendered, as is their Siciliana mamma
who has become a cyborg and watches over her aquatic bambini from a
grounded satellite. What Mr. McAllister has done is to take s.f. clichés –
e.g. the warlike lizard people, the “inborn” yearning of the adapted humans
for dry land, the development of new senses underwater, the eternal
partnership of Man and Dog (both now aquatic!) – and try to recreate them
as genuinely realized experiences. However, the re-vitalizing (or contra-
dicting) of the clichés plus the exposition of these entirely through dramatic
development lead to some awful holes in the book’s logic. Gianna (we are
told) has gone crazy because the technicians who made her a cyborg forgot
to provide her with REM sleep – surely a very elementary error. (My own
theory is that anybody with a “maternal drive” of 9.99 is already crazy.)
Moreover, the Man–Dog business really does not move out of cliché; I kept
hoping that those funny, hairy creatures who kept trying to play with the
mer-people were man’s best friend, the noble cat, but no go. And the repro-
ductive system Mr. McAllister has given his people is awful. He seems to
have been carried away by his successes with telepathy into inventing a
method of telepathic copulation, in which the males project a mental image
of a legged fish (the longing for dry land, see?) to the females, who
thereupon fertilize themselves, since they carry both testes and ovaries inside
their own bodies. This method of reproduction not only throws away the
enormous advantages of sexual reproduction (constant hybridization); it
loses even the advantages of asexual reproduction, since we do not have
endless repetition of a single individual (as in budding) but what is far
worse, a constant re-shuffling of the genetic material of one person – in which
much hereditary material is bound to get lost for good, by sheer chance.
Genetic drift would be very fast in such a group of creatures, and probably
lethal. The end of the novel gives us only one Eve, a sure recipe for disaster.
There is no reason for this mess. After all, even fish reproduce sexually.
There is still less reason for chaste monogamy – or for that matter, hetero-
sexuality. Mr. McAllister has just not thought the whole business through.
The real subject of Humanity Prime is mer-life and telepathic consciousness;
the mer-dogs, the reptile Cromanths, the whole reproductive mess, and
even the cyborg (entertaining as she is) could be dispensed with. I hope
Mr. McAllister’s next book is less encumbered with traditional material.
The Committed Men by M. John Harrison stops where most American novels
would begin. It is the British ending the world again; after the Bomb comes
the usual Character Consumed by Guilt (I never figured out for what), the
Odd Communities, the Plagues, the Realist, the Madmen, and the Dreary
Pilgrimage through the Rubble. Finally the characters make contact with
some exceedingly interesting “mutants” (specially bred by the Govern-
ment, actually), and there the book ends. The final confrontation with the
mutants is especially fine – a weird, parodic version of the Queen of Faerie
of old English ballads – but except for an enigmatic character named Nick
Bruton (who resembles Michael Moorcock’s Jerry Cornelius) most of this
is very much a twice-told tale. It is good writing thrown away. The psycho-
logical subtleties of dreary suffering, accurate as they were, only bored me.
Committed Men is Mr. Harrison’s first novel; I hope that he and Mr. McAllister
both learn to cut the cackle and get to the ‘osses. They are both good writers.
In an article entitled “Thea and I” published in Entropy Negative #3, a fan

magazine put out in Vancouver, Ursula Le Guin said that Charles W.
Runyon’s Pig World made her feel a little sick. I suppose you have to take
the book more seriously than I am capable of doing for that. An ineffably
silly blend of infantile Marxism, cardboard revolutionaries who carefully
summarize their positions to each other, a hero named Marvin, for God’s
sake, who is radicalized in one evening, total vagueness as to anybody’s
ideology or political orientation, and a story that takes half the book to quit
summarizing and start dramatizing itself – this is Pig World. There are
tremenjus chunks of mysterious exposition about what’s happening in
West Somaliland, Siberia, and points all over. There’s oodles of play-
money, which the revolutionaries live on like James Bond. There is a
hugeous power machine (Sex, Money, Power, and Megalomania =
Revolution!) At the end the hero shoots the villain on Main Street, and
the Eternal Feminine tells the hero he’s betrayed the revolution by
succumbing to Power and forgetting Love – I mean I think so or Mr. Runyon
thinks so, but only God knows and She won’t tell. Pig World may become
a curio on other grounds, though: every woman in it has pubes, breasts,
REVIEWS 79
buttocks, and sometimes even a navel! I tend to take these things for
granted, but Mr. Runyon (despite his three children and wife, all mentioned
in the blurb) has apparently never gotten over that first shock of peeking
into the girls’ locker room. So we start with Dominique, the mini-skirted
sexpot who awards herself in bed to good revolutionaries: “Since she wore
the medallions of her sex right out in front, he decided to take her on those
terms” (p. 17). (Where should she wear them, on her head?) Dominique’s
mother, Marie, has breasts (p. 30) and buttocks (p. 32). Faye has breasts
and buttocks (p. 40). And a navel (p. 61). Teej has breasts (p. 120) and
pubic hair (surprise! p. 123). More breasts on p. 149 (Big Yoni), breasts,
belly, and “bush” (p. 158), two sets of breasts and pubis (p. 160), more
breasts (p. 181), breasts and pubic hair (p. 176) and a nipple-less, vagina-
less goddess (p. 214). The weirdity of all this is that almost all the anatomy
is described in the most un-erotic moments, when the women are dying,
wounded, fighting, or doing very ordinary things, like driving cars or saying
hello. There is one real copulation in the book and that is a memory;
naturally there is no anatomy involved, but only the usual overblown
imagery of the vague-and-inflated school.
He had felt the first tremors inside her chest and heard the moan
rising up inside her throat. A strangled cry escaped into the room,
then the sound burst out like a tiger released from its cage; he was
hammered, clawed, ripped, squeezed, and finally annihilated, by
her passion. (p. 124)
Alas, the hero survives for duller doings. I myself am writing a novel
about a revolution, in which all the males are characterized as follows:
He was a medium-sized man with round buttocks and lumpy

testicles, one longer than the other. They swayed as he walked.
Sometimes they swayed freely. His penis hung down in front. I
decided to take him on those terms.
Can You Feel Anything When I Do This? is a collection of Robert Shackley’s

short stories, very polished, sometimes funny, but mostly haunted by other
people’s themes or ways of thinking (e.g. James Sallis, Brian Aldiss, Jorge
Luis Borges). Many of the tales are slight and conventional. Mr. Shackley
is at his best when he’s comic; “The Petrified World” is really original;
“Cordle” is quite funny, and “Tripout” ditto. A pleasant book.
Pandora’s Planet. Christopher Anvil (Doubleday, $5.95). The Light That Never
Was. Lloyd Biggle (Doubleday, $4.95). Midsummer Century. James Blish
(Doubleday, $4.95). Beyond Apollo. Barry Malzberg (Random House, $5.95).
What Entropy Means To Me. George Alec Effinger (Doubleday, $4.95)
Outsiders mean bad and stupid things when they say “science fiction,” but
sometimes the bad and stupid things are unfortunately accurate. In the
1930s even the most simple-minded tale written for bright, white, male,
conventional fourteen-year-olds had some shock and novelty value
(because of its context), but the same thing written and published in the
1970s is another kettle of Venusian fishoids. (Some day s.f. writers will
stop tacking “oid” onto nouns. We may even stop having our characters
drink coffee under other names like Anne McCaffrey’s “klah.”)
Pandora’s Planet by Christopher Anvil turns on one naive joke: that we
are smarter than the aliens who invade us. Human chauvinism seems fairly
harmless – after all, how many giant ants have been demonstrating for
civil rights lately? – but Pandora does not really include all humans. If
“America” is geography and “Amerika” the radical-left nightmare, then
Pandora is pure Amurrica – women, children, non-whites, non-Americans,
homosexuals, the poor, even the genuinely religious, need not apply. Even
the invading aliens (to judge from the book’s detail) are white, male,
American, middle-class, and middle-aged. A fan writer recently charac-
terized one type of s.f. fan as The Galactic Square. Pandora’s Planet is written
for The Galactic Square. If we lived in a sensuous, emotional, erotically
permissive, egalitarian, heterogeneous, more-or-less matriarchy, Mr.
Anvil’s novel would be a stunning piece of speculation. I’ve been kind to
routine s.f. in the past, but Pandora doesn’t have the energy or luridness
that can make s.f. stereotypes minimally interesting. The central joke isn’t
even new; a fine story written in the 1950s from the viewpoint of a human
con-man ends with the aliens being sold the Brooklyn Bridge. And then
one has to put up with Pandora’s conviction that intelligence means only
technical or military ingenuity, with emphasis on the latter (Einstein would
not be at home here), that all humans have IQs of 130 or above, that a
deus ex machina is a good way to end a dramatic conflict (the book has two
of them), and that Communism and Fascism are silly-simple decals. The
only funny episode in the novel is one in which the alien hero undergoes
a spell of deep depression brought on by watching TV.
REVIEWS 81
James Blish once spotted a bad flaw typical of certain s.f. – the smeerp
business. That is, if you have rabbits in a story and want to make the story
s.f., you change “rabbits” to “smeerps” and there you are.1 Pandora’s details
are often Smeerps: “What we are giving you is no perfumed hammock of
sweet flowers” (bed of roses, p. 74), “iron road” for railroad (chemin-de-fer,
p. 86), a Huntley-Brinkley newscast (pp. 147–48) and so on. It is all racist,
sexist, antiseptic, and good-humored, and The Galactic Square would love
it. The best (or worst) frisson comes early, on p. 22:
“We can’t help it!” sobbed several voices in unison, “they’re smarter
than we are.”
I can’t help it, either.
Lloyd Biggle must be writing for the same audience, for although The Light
That Never Was is more completely dramatized than Pandora and more
colorful, it’s just as bad. There is the same failure in dramatic resolution (a
“plague” of hatred on two dozen worlds demands more of a cause than a
single, mad, unscrupulous – and dull – millionaire), the same Smeerps
(“wrranels” instead of oxen or horses, “revs” instead of parties, “lumeno
console” instead of piano-playing or card games, and so on). The book’s
message seems to be that one ought to consider unhuman sophonts
(“animaloids”) one’s brothers; that is why a horse-like sophont, the one
individualized alien in the book, is told “there, there, old fellow” and patted
on the neck. (The oppressed “animaloids” are all totally noble, unselfish,
and peaceful, of course.) Light is ostensibly about artists, but the novel’s
view of them is pure Hollywood; to Mr. Biggle artists apparently mean
painters and painters mean nobody after the Impressionists. In Light art
dealers recognize masterpieces after “one brief look” (p. 14), some subjects
are artistic and some aren’t (p. 19), painters refer to each other as “X, the
artist” instead of “X, the abstract-impressionist” (or whatever, p. 33), and
paintings become masterpieces once they’re officially recognized (p. 107).
Part of the plot turns on the sudden conversion of dozens of hacks into
real artists when they find new subject matter (i.e. scenes) to paint (p. 190).
Not only has Mr. Biggle not invented a science-fiction version of painting;
he does not seem to know or care about the last ninety years of Western
painting. For example, there is a lot of talk about finding the best natural
light to paint in – you would not know from the novel that most contem-
porary painters use artificial light.
1 William Atheling, Jr. (James Blish), The Issue at Hand, Advent Publishers,
Chicago, 1964, p. 92.
There are women in the book, although the most important of them
says “Posh!” and is called a “minx” and a “wanton.” The men are just as
bad. Mr. Biggle has an occasionally ghastly way with words: on p. 22
someone’s memory “was still replete with what he had seen,” on p. 45
someone else is “not certain whom the public might be,” on the same page
“it was the most unusual city they had ever seen, but it was also the most
memorable,” on p. 73 everyone is “enthused,” on p. 122 “She loved to eat
but … despised the lozenges that followed overindulgence.” On p. 63
someone “pointed a finger impalingly” and on p. 66 someone is followed
by “children … mouthing shrill taunts” (italics all mine). It is also a very
small planet; the head of the secret police finds things out by hanging
around the spaceport and listening to the tourists talk (p. 92), apparently
not having any staff who can do it for him.
It’s narsty to beat up on authors who are probably starving to death on
turnip soup but critics ought to be honest. Both books are juveniles, though
not so labeled, both books are awful, and I wouldn’t want any juvenile to
read either of them.
James Blish’s Midsummer Century is like the old proverb: if we had some
ham, we could make some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs. There is
something strangely gratuitous about it. Mr. Blish’s powers as a writer of
single scenes are as keen as ever and Century is crammed with ingenious
ideas, but to my mind the book just doesn’t cohere. It was Mr. Blish who
invented the term “intensively recomplicated plot,” and Midsummer Century
has what is surely the most intensively recomplicated plot in existence;
what’s more, the plot turns are explained or rationalized after they happen,
an unsettling procedure at best. I thought for a while there was too much
material in the book (although a kind of epic, spanning many years, it is
only 106 pages long); then I decided that the trouble lay in the point-of-
view character, one Martels, a twentieth-century scientist flung forward
in time to the 250th century. He is vividly and economically characterized
in the book’s first eight pages, but after that he might be anybody, or rather
nobody, for he has not a single human reaction. (There is one emotional
moment on p. 26 which is pure stereotype.) His character is quite irrel-
evant to his situation. He seems, in fact, to be irrelevant to the book except
as a plot device; Mr. Blish’s future tropical world of re-tribalized humanity,
sentient Birds, a disembodied brain, and small colonies of scientifically
oriented people living at the South Pole could get along much better
without its twentieth-century visitor. (The book resembles Jack Vance’s
dying earth.) It might – without Martels – be possible to set up dramatic
givens and then follow them. As the book stands now, there is no way to
make dramatic sense of it – that is, the givens themselves are perpetually
REVIEWS 83
changing and in some places judgments seem to be made without any

evidence. After a while it begins to seem as if every episode is being resolved
arbitrarily, or at least each episode is resolved on the basis of knowledge
neither reader nor protagonist possessed until that moment. Although
Century is not exactly self-contradictory, it might as well be.
I suspect that Mr. Blish has a coherent intellectual or thematic scheme
for the novel (perhaps his subject is consciousness itself), but the dramatic
conflict in the novel is quite disjunct from the thematic pattern. The world
of the book is vivid and strange, but there is some flaw in construction that
makes reading Century genuinely exasperating – just when you think
you’ve got hold of the puzzle, the author changes the terms on you. If only
we could have plunged into the consciousness of some native of the world
and then stayed there for four or five hundred pages! As it is, Mr. Blish
packs a full-scale Bird/Human war into four paragraphs, treats “juganity”
and the Platonic model of consciousness as if he had explained them (which
he hasn’t), and wrenches his plot back and forth like a zigzag ride at a fun
fair. Perhaps Century is the first stab into new territory for Mr. Blish, a
sketchy vision of something that may become an important new part of
the Blishian canon. I remain confused.
Barry Malzberg’s Beyond Apollo fulfills the promise of his earlier novel, The
Falling Astronauts (Ace). The repetitiousness, the sloppiness, and the uncer-
tainty of the earlier novel are all gone – though I miss the earlier book’s
assumption that not only the dehumanized astronauts but everyone in the
program (and in the government) was insane. Again we have the protag-
onist’s wife as the one human being who knows that something has gone
wrong, again the false, rational, “cool,” bureaucratic-analytic tone of voice
is shot with errors, and undermined by little mistakes (“committed sexual
acts”) which carry it easily and reasonably to the point of lunacy. The novel
is lyrical, even circular, in structure, although it presents a straightforward,
detective-story problem: How did the Venus flight fail? There is an answer,
but the answer cannot be paraphrased. Words like “seriously,” like “under-
stand,” like “believe,” like “insane,” are used seriously, are believed in, are
insane, are understood – seriously – until they become a kind of Greek
chorus, a terrible, poignant insistence on something that is not quite in the
story but yet comes through the story. Reason is crazy, madness is sane.
As the protagonist writes in his diary:
The Captain … said that he had always had homosexual impulses

and by God now he was going to act on them; if you couldn’t do what
you wanted to do thirty million miles from earth, when were you going to get
to do it? (pp. 27–28, italics mine)
In his cell, meditating on What Went Wrong, doing cryptograms (he

knows this is the only truly sane activity), Harry Evans – madman, failed
astronaut – tells us over and over again How It Really Happened, a different
story each time. Apollo is the cri du coeur of the Galactic Amurrican Square
who read Pandora’s Planet at fourteen and believed it would really be like
that, a series of false perspectives, an exquisite tangle of self-deception.
Only the protagonist’s sexuality reminds him that he’s human; yet sex
itself has been deformed, has turned bodies into machinery, women into
knives; it spills over and informs the most excessive, desperate metaphors
of this astonishing book. There are veins of gold: “Her chin juts, reminding
me of that other wedge of bone which rushed me in the night.” Or:
I am back in my bed, crawling out of the dream in small pieces,

sweating and fussing, muttering to myself, or perhaps I am only
clambering back into a dream, coming into my room in small sections,
but in any event it is very complex and uncontrollable and I can make
nothing of it … (p. 64)
Doors slam up and down my wife’s body; lights are extinguished.

She pants; she groans. (p. 76)
Which is the real story – the almost Trafalmadorian Venusians who

murdered the Captain and forced Evans to return? Or the mad Captain
who kept Evans guessing the purpose of the trip to Venus, literally for
weeks? Or the homosexual, murderous Captain? Or the man who simply
couldn’t stand it any more? The answer comes from reading the whole
book, not from picking up separate clues as in a detective story. Still, the
only way to read the whole book is to let oneself be taken in, to try and
make sense of what doesn’t make that kind of sense. As far as I can tell,
there are only two straightforward moments in the novel, both occurring
paradoxically when the protagonist is farthest into his madness: the
remarks the two Evanses make about themselves near the end (“They made
a machine of me”) and the altered meaning of the first paragraph of the
novel, repeated at the end:
“I loved the Captain in my own way, although I knew that he was

insane, the poor bastard … one must consider the conditions. The
conditions were intolerable.” (p. 3)
The Captain, of course, may be nothing more than Evans’ alter ego, or an
object in the madness that permeates this beautiful and heartbreaking
book. There are horrid ironies, like Evans’ pride in being so “highly
REVIEWS 85
qualified.” There are gorgeous turns of phrase, bridge problems and

cryptograms like “lovely small neurasthenic tentacles,” “the little knifelike
slant of his abused genitals … It is all for Venus.”
Mr. Malzberg has been writing good books for some time. Beyond Apollo
is a passionate, fine, completely realized work. The Galactic Square won’t
like it.
(“The universe”, writes Harry Evans on p. 112, “was invented by man
in 1976 as a cheap and easy explanation for all of his difficulties in
conquering it.”)
What Entropy Means To Me by George Alec Effinger is a promising first novel,

a kind of camp epic in which the hero’s Quest is invented – chapter by
chapter – by his younger brother, while family squabbles rage as to what
religious status the now-gone brother is to enjoy in the family pantheon.
(The story has the air of games by which children transform their own back
yards into Mars.) The family theology seems to recapitulate early Christian
battles about the Trinity, with the addition here that the religion is a mythi-
fication of a family life which we actually see. Thus we have our
(leucotomized) mother whose perpetual tears are the source of the River
of Life, the thrones (chairs) in the back yard, which belong to different
principles (children) and so on. Some of this is fine, in particular the siblings’
dealings with each other (they sign notes “Yours truly” even when the
notes are threats on other siblings’ lives) and the younger brother’s literary
throes (complicated by the family Conscience Monitor and the children’s
doctrinal wars). The parents, however, are very bald stereotypes and the
scenes of the Quest are often vulgar without being funny or far too cheaply
silly, e.g. phrases like “You’re really weird” intruding into a bad satire of a
love scene (p. 25). Mr. Effinger’s book is uneven, despite the fine quantum
jump of an ending, but parts are genuinely sweet and deceptively slight.
At its best the story achieves a fine suffusion of emotion. I hope Mr. Effinger
will go on to better things; the imagination and individuality are already
there. The novel is dedicated to (among others) “my parents, for enabling
me to write unfettered by the bonds of nonexistence.”
Village Voice, June 16, 1973
Mystification about (gulp) marriage
The Future of Marriage. Jessie Bernard (World, $9.95). Marriage: For and
Against. Ed. Harold H. Hart (Hart, $7.50 and $2.45)
Glomph is bad. Glomph is good. Everybody ought to have a glomph.

Glomph will kill you and make your toes fall off. Glomph is the only way
to lead a normal life.
There is something quintessential, ineffable, mystical, and inexpressible
about glomph – sorry, I mean “marriage” – but what in God’s name is
marriage? If you were a Martian and read these books, you couldn’t tell.
Like the old warnings about sex (which never told you what it was) contro-
versy about marriage nowadays escalates instantly into the Dance of the
Seven Obfuscations. Definitions of marriage are either economic-cum-
role-playing or they are mystifying. Still, the fight goes on, as if “marriage”
were substantive, unalterable, monolithic, and autonomous. I don’t under-
stand what they think they are talking about and I’ve been married.
Marriage as an economic contract and a promise to undertake certain
role behavior has been taken to pieces and condemned by many feminists.
This version of marriage is not an interesting one. What is interesting is
the intense emotionality that surrounds the subject. People seem to react
to “marriage” as they react to “youth” or “immorality”; these are content-
free terms and the discussion of them tends to be content-free, but the
sheer quantity of upset that surrounds all these topics shows that the discus-
sants are talking about something very dear to them, even though nobody
seems to know what it is.
As far as the ostensible subject goes, Marriage For and Against is worthless.
Even Jessie Bernard’s The Future of Marriage provides only one analytic tool
– the distinction between “his” marriage and “her” marriage – and is
otherwise quite baffling. Dr. Bernard cites all sorts of studies about who
marries whom, when, how many times, what they say about each other,
who does what domestic chores, and so on, but none of this seems to clarify
or illuminate the subject. Talking about marital behavior without deciding
what marriage is is like compiling statistics about where and when people
take their vacations without ever deciding what play is.
The Future of Marriage is valuable as a mine of citations from the liter-
ature and has some interesting details. There is enough material to damn
REVIEWS 87
the wife’s marriage several times over (Dr. Bernard’s viewpoint is feminist)
and there is a good short discussion of leftist sexism. But is there not also
the bank’s marriage, the advertiser’s marriage, the state’s marriage, the
children’s marriage – and if “marriage” is not autonomous but connected
with every other institution in our society (both books treat only of
Western, even American marriage), how can one talk about it without some
theoretical underpinning? Dr. Bernard gets awfully mixed up about this.
As most sociologists do, she ignores institutional functions and analyzes
roles, with a desultory nod toward people’s motivations for entering into
institutions. She seems to assume, for example, that the functions served
by marriage (both to the participants and to the society) will remain the
same in future, but that “marriage” will change. (Sometimes she says the
functions will change. It’s very confusing.) I cannot see how this is possible.
Moreover, the personal effects of marriage and its social functions are not
disentangled.
Dr. Bernard succumbs to the worst mystification at one point – she states
that there is “something timeless running through the accounts of specific
husbands and wives” and then quotes vignettes from the Greek and the
Old Testament without inquiring whether husband–wife interaction is
similar when limited to one husband and one wife, persons who know
each other, persons of different sexes, of the same sex, many husbands
and/or many wives, persons who like each other, persons who hate each
other, persons whose relation is distant, persons for whom marriage
matters little compared with other relations, and so on. That is, she is
anthropologically naive.
It is just this “monolithism”, this comfy timelessness that Juliet Mitchell
shreds to pieces in Woman’s Estate, the only book I can find that gives a
systematic social analysis of the institutional functions of marriage, as
distinct from both its ostensible institutional functions and the motives that
propel people into it. Dr. Bernard’s theoretical statements about marriage
(and the methods of research she cites) could be applied to any relationship
at all – for example, it would be perfectly easy to argue that the landlord–
tenant relationship is “timeless” – because it is. The “timelessness” of
marriage means only that people brought up in similar traditions (Western
patriarchal, no?) and in similar institutions, playing similar roles, behave
similarly.
The distinctions between institutional function, ostensible function, and
personal motive are what is left out of both books (and most discussions).
In the absence of such distinctions there can hardly be anything but moral-
izing, “umbrella-ology” (fussing around with the factual details without
relating them to one another), or bafflement. (Some of the essays in For
and Against are palpably frustrated by the request to write “something about
marriage” – you can almost hear them protesting: “but what am I supposed
to say?”) The major trend of radical thinking in the last decade (perhaps
always?) has been to disentangle ostensible from real functions and then
to explode: Look! They don’t match! In the case of the public schools, for
example, it comes as no surprise to hear that although the public school
system is supposed to educate the young (ostensible function) it really
makes sure that upward mobility is confined to the “right” people (real
function), and that children do not attend public school in order to be
educated but because they are coerced, either directly or by economic
pressure (motives).
No comparable analysis has been done on marriage. (Woman’s Estate is
again an exception.) The reasons people get married, or say they do, are
not the same as the social functions marriage is supposed to serve (sex,
socializing the young, affectionate companionship, and production, i.e.
maintaining certain physical and emotional living conditions for the
family), and the ostensible function is not the same as the real function.
Literature on marriage seems to make some distinction between the first
and second (it doesn’t mention the third) but assumes that the first and
second are harmonious. One could doubt it.
Taking the statistics in Future of Marriage as a starting point, it seems that
people’s sex lives are often terrible, that women suffer from having
exclusive responsibility for socializing the young, that spouses, certainly
wives, and certainly in the working class, don’t get the affectionate compan-
ionship they want, and that the divorce rate in the U.S. is now 44 out of
100 marriages.
All this gets thrown around in For and Against but, as in the great gray
Times, there is no real discussion of the subject. One of the gackiest assump-
tions in modern American “controversy” is that if there are two points of
view, the truth must be exactly between them. To get an objective,
“balanced” view, you measure the distance between one view and t’other
and plop yourself down in the geometric center. Essential is a cop-out intro-
duction which keeps saying on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand. (The
book has one.) It is also very important to ask people to testify who know
nothing about the subject. (Thus we have such experts on marital activity
as Judith Crist and Max Lerner.) A vast array of opinions, the more super-
ficially varied the better, guarantees truth; that it may guarantee nothing
more elevated than confusion doesn’t seem to occur to anybody. (That is,
opinions are treated as phenomena, not as statements which might be true
or false.)
An old and honored ploy, when discussing an institution, is that the
institution is fine but the people are at fault – i.e. people aren’t adapting
themselves to the institution or being trained properly for it or being
REVIEWS 89
“motivated” enough. We exist for the Sabbath; the Sabbath does not exist
for us. A book about marriage that has four women essayists and 11 men
essayists is damned from the start, to my mind; but the book has been more
careful in balancing experts and non-experts – 50 percent of each, roughly.
People who combine boldly radical statements (“Marriage is obsolete”)
with cop-out remedies (rituals like engagement showers must cease) must
constitute a significant number of your discussants. It is essential never to
define the subject and to use the kind of single-variable thinking that good
science fiction writers try so hard to avoid – i.e. if you change one variable,
you must be careful to assume that everything else will remain the same.
That is why the changed variable “won’t work.” For example, if you are
Ira Reiss, say that polygamy (I suspect he means plural spouses of both
sexes) cannot work because human relations are difficult enough between
two people. (That is, never consider that relations among several people
may be less intense than dyadic relations, and hence less difficult.) If you
are Judith Crist, assume implicitly that all women are wealthy and middle-
class and that alimony exists for more than a very tiny minority. If you are
a woman, it is also good to denounce female “parasites” and glorify hard
work and serious commitment (another name for monogamy). After all,
everybody knows housewives do nothing but eat chocolates all day.
You must be absolutely sure to ignore the economic or contractual base
of whatever phenomenon you are discussing. Only one person may be
allowed to mention the awful truth that sexuality does not create permanent
pair-bonds (Joseph Fletcher) and thus cannot serve as a natural basis for
monogamy. You may, nowadays, have one moderate feminist (Caroline
Bird) who is actually allowed some analysis and some knowledge that
marriage is not an autonomous institution. When asked to define marriage,
your discussants must be humane and disembodied and talk about compan-
ionship – but when they actually talk about the suitability of marriage to
modern life, they must rush like lemmings to the areas of sex and exclu-
sivity, especially if they are men; either adultery is bad and a “problem” or
the exclusivity of sex is a problem and monogamy is bad.
Of course most of us are hopelessly confused about the nature of the
institutional and ideological forces in our lives. Most “controversial” discus-
sions are sheer ideology-yelling which never gets anywhere; at their best,
they are descriptions of roles (this is Juliet Mitchell’s complaint about
sociology) which lead to what I think is an unwarranted optimism. Jessie
Bernard’s book is largely an inventory of roles, treated as autonomous; so
the (easy) cure, of course, is education. (If there were social reasons, apart
from the personal motives that led people into marriage, for keeping
marriage as it is, education would not be enough to change the institution.)
Even untangling an institution’s real functions from its ostensible functions
only clears away the rubble from the real question: What do people actually
need and want?
It seems extremely strange to me (for example) that although there
have been so many investigations of marital roles, nobody has investigated
what people get from each other, what people need in other people, in
short, friendship. There has been some of this, mostly speculative
psychology. Sociology seems to have left it alone. Even the most reactionary
essays in For and Against assume that people marry for affection; Jessie
Bernard assumes the same thing; in fact, she sees affection as the one
function that will give marriage a future once sex, child-rearing, and
housework are dealt with in other ways. (I do not see why the need for
affection must lead to marriage, unless one defines “marriage” as any
relation obtaining between people who are fond of each other – a definition
that would include some really surprising things.)
But what is affection? Nobody knows. Yet surely the relation least
contaminated by contract and role behavior can surely tell us the most
about what people seek freely and without practical motive – e.g. we all
distinguish, I think, between friendships and mutual-admiration societies,
which (though informal) are based on a kind of contract. But nobody
bothers to investigate friendship.
I would very much like to know what people seek in each other and
get from each other when their work, their reproductive obligations, and
their means of getting a living are provided for in some other way. Is it
necessary, for example, to work together in order to have friendships? Are
“colleague” friends different from “playmate” friends? Does one need both
in the same relation? Nobody seems to know.
Perhaps the heat generated by the topic of “marriage” is an index of our
secret knowledge that we are in fact talking about nothing. When you have
described the role behavior required by marriage and the economic contract
that is its base, you have described all there is – the substantive, really-
existing Essence the ideology insists on just isn’t there. It’s very easy to tear
marriage and marital orthodoxy into little pieces if you treat them as
concrete phenomena (like anything else). Ruth Dickson did just this in
1968 in a nice book called Marriage is a Bad Habit (Sherbourne Press, Los
Angeles). Nobody listened. I found Bad Habit withering away on a second-
hand counter – this although she includes every feminist argument ever
penned.
Until we start looking at the real functions of institutions, at who profits,
at how, at who really knows about the profiting and who has concealed
the knowledge, and how much, and to what end, we will know nothing.
George Bernard Shaw has somewhere a statement to the effect that
people keep asking him what social phenomena “mean” and he has to tell
REVIEWS 91
them that what they’re talking about doesn’t even exist, let alone have a
meaning. I suspect that the real horror of our noisy, elaborate controversy
about marriage is a horror vacui; the function of ideology is to conceal the
fact that it’s talking about nothing; hence the mystification, hence the secret
knowledge of falsity, hence the fear of finding out the falsity, hence the
extraordinarily excessive emotion.
So much for “marriage.”
Eros In Orbit: A Collection of All New Science Fiction Stories About Sex. Ed. Joseph
Elder (Trident Press, $6.95). Strange Bedfellows: Sex and Science Fiction. Ed.
Thomas N. Scortia (Random House, $5.95). The Iron Dream. Norman
Spinrad (Avon, $.95). The Listeners. James Gunn (Scribners, $6.95). Dying
Inside. Robert Silverberg (Scribners, $6.95)
The topic of sex seems to bring out the worst in a lot of us: embarrassment,
1930s obviousness, and the assumption that just mentioning love-making
is somehow funny. Joseph Elder’s introduction to Eros In Orbit contains
such phrases as “the pleasures of the flesh,” “carnal love,” “the age-old
itch,” and the question “Where will it all end?” which only occurs to
nervous Americans when they don’t know where a lot of other societies
have already been. Thomas Scortia is also seized with editorial coyness; he
perpetrates “hypermammiferous females” and “raunchy writers … like
naughty schoolboys.” These are symptoms of embarrassment, i.e. the
assimilation of novelty.
Both anthologies range from the fine to the awful. (By the way, it’s good
to see publishing houses like Trident, Random House, and Scribners getting
into science fiction.) Anthologies “about” this or that theme are bound to
be uneven, especially in science fiction where the “topic” is only ostensible
– e.g. Philip Jose Farmer’s “The Lovers” is really a story of alien mimicry
like Avram Davidson’s “Or All the Seas with Oysters,” and Theodore
Sturgeon’s “The World Well Lost” (which is reprinted in Strange Bedfellows)

is not about homosexuality per se, but about the effects of enforced secrecy
on the human soul. If the anthologies are uneven I suspect the topic is at
fault; sex is both endlessly interesting and very hard to write about. Either
writers succumb to social taboos and write hartyhars or they break the
taboos and are so dazzled by the mere fact of having done so that they
manage to express only the most obvious science fiction ideas. Most of the
stories in both books don’t get beyond the idea of mechanical substitutes
for sex – gadgets or android partners or recordings. There is practically no
group sex, no promiscuity rendered genuinely and from the inside, and
(except for the Sturgeon reprint) no homosexuality. Alien–human love
fares a little better, but the only new attempt at perversion, technically
speaking, is a story about paedophilia1 which studiously avoids showing
any. Bedfellows (half reprint, half new stories) is the more thoughtful
anthology, illustrating James Blish’s dictum that ideas alone are worthless;
what counts is ideas about ideas. Sex, like all primary experiences, can be
named directly but not described directly; one can only describe its effect
on people, its experiential dimension, so to speak. In the newness of taboo-
breaking, many writers forget this, and the result is descriptions of
love-making which are interchangeable from story to story. What matters
is not organ grinding but the explosions sex produces in the head; some
writers in the anthologies know this. Most are learning. Some are hopeless.
The best new story in Eros (either book, really) is Robert Silverberg’s
“In the Group” which deals with a splendidly pathological future of group-
sex (actually they use mechanical telepathy) and the one monogamous
throwback who can’t fit in, the sort of thing Kingsley Amis once called
conservatively progressive. The motives for the protagonist’s present-day
attitudes are never explained (the story’s one flaw) but moment-to-
moment rendering of experience is fine, especially the joyless priggishness
of that wretched Group from which the obsessed hero finally flees.
Silverberg’s prose very occasionally slips (“taut globes”) but at its best
it’s very good – “her jolly slithers and slides” or the Group’s “olla podrida
of copulations.” Good also is Ron Goulart’s “Whistler” which one might
call a tragedy of misfitting morals to situation, except that Goulart’s style
is far too cool, detached, and comic to merit such a heated definition. It’s
the usual blend of the homey and the freaky; in this conventional world
in which businessmen leave their middle-aged wives lonely in Westport
the heroine buys a mechanical hand called Wakzoff for the hero; she says,
“If you love someone, you give them things.” Goulart Man finally does in
1 Not love of feet (which you might suspect) but love of children.
REVIEWS 93
slender, intense Goulart Woman, a hopeful sign that Goulart may be

moving into new territory. George Zebrowski’s “Starcrossed,” another fine
story, is too genuinely science-fictionally far-out to summarize easily; in
essence it’s a love affair between two parts of a cyborg brain. It’s the only
story in both books to realize the sense of the subjectively erotic; Zebrowski
knows that the experience of sex can be approached only through its effects,
and when he writes of the “awesome reliability and domination” of the
sex act he’s closer to the real thing than all the thighs and globes in the
world. There are other stories in the book that have a touch of this,
especially Gordon Eklund’s “Lovemaker” with its exploration of an android
consciousness (for which sex is the only real act in the world) and Barry
Malzberg’s “Ups and Downs,” with its first-rate Malzbergian grasp of a
certain kind of mental process (though I wish he’d cross into new territory,
as he’s done a lot of the same thing lately). Pamela Sargent’s “Clone Sister”
and Ed Bryant’s “2.46593” are fairly good, and there are three failures:
Thomas Scortia’s “Flowering Narcissus” (a Hell’s Angel Mama is not a Hell’s
Angel with estrogen added but a very different personality type – nor is
the H.A. in the story anything more than a stereotype); John Stopa’s
“Kiddy-Lib” which is an even worse example of a middle-class outsider’s
idea of hippies, old men who letch after little girls, and children themselves
(the schematic shifting of counters doesn’t help), all with a careful evasion
of the real subject; and Thomas Brand’s “Don Slow,” an incoherent farce-
parody which not only believes that prostitutes are nymphomaniacs and
homosexuals limp-wristed sissies, but (worse) does not know that parody
must restrict itself to one target and farce must not invent new plot zigzags
whenever it has plot problems.
The best stories in Bedfellows are reprints: Theodore Sturgeon’s loverbird
story and Philip Jose Farmer’s classic, “Mother.” The Sturgeon story worries
the editor, who reassures you that Sturgeon is “virile,” “sexual,” and
“devoutly heterosexual.” (He also has “a fierce beard.”) The relationship
in the story is far more bizarre than Mr. Scortia even suspects; if mere
homosexuality frightens him, what would he make of the intense, secret
romanticism that is the real subject? Brian Aldiss’s “Lambeth Blossom,” a
splendid playing with reality, seems to be a reprint, although I haven’t seen
it before (maybe England?) as is Reginald Bretnor’s “Doctor Birdmouse,”
a well-done story that tries to present loneliness and sexual frustration as
funny. In truth Mr. Bretnor doesn’t believe it, but his real theme is too
God-awfully horrifying to treat straight – though I think the idea began as
a gentle whimsicality; his Miss Cowturtle sounds very like Tenniel’s Mock
Turtle in Alice in Wonderland. But Mr. Bretnor is too good a writer not to
feel the grimness of his alien/human mating joke. The lyricism of Laurence
Yep’s “Looking Glass Sea” presents the positive side of love between species
with its marvelously strange silicon/crystalline world, and George

Zebrowski’s “First Love, First Fear” (although a little too long) shows what
can be done with “rationalized” fantasy (a major source of s.f.). The biology
is flawed (what is an alien doing with mammaries when her babies eat
their way out of her like insect babies?) but the story creates authentic
strangeness and springs from real sexual feelings (the fear–attraction of
inexperience). The formidable Silverberg is present with “Push No More,”
a fine, awful, comic portrait of the same fourteen-year-old seen from a
very different perspective (“suave as a pig” and his pimples light up like
beacons when he blushes) although the story is written from the wrong
point of view – there is too much of a split between the teller and what he
must describe, i.e. himself. Another good story is “False Dawn,” one of
Chelsea Quinn Yarbro’s series about her future-disaster world, which
contains (among other things) a rape told from the point of view of the
victim – it’s not good clean fun, kiddies. Not as accomplished but equally
interesting stories are Jack Dann’s “I’m With You in Rockland” and Mel
Gilden’s “What About Us Grils,” the most science-fictionally far-out stories
in the book. The first expresses alienation from one’s body in a metaphor-
made-literal that is pure s.f. – this is the kind of originality both anthologies
could use more of – and the second captures something of the effect of
what-on-earth-do-they-see-in-each-other, one of the legitimate effects of
s.f. sex, especially in the very last paragraph. Failures (and some are awful)
include a slight anecdote by Walt Leibscher (“Do Androids Dream of Electric
Love?”); the oddly inconclusive “Genetic Faux Pas” by Harvey Bilker,
which probably had more point in its original context; “Dinner at Helen’s”
by William Carlson, another middle-class conventional pretense at unisex
and hippiedom; G. A. Alpher’s “The Mechanical Sweetheart,” a talented
but derivative (Nabokov) and overwritten piece – grotesquerie is not as
easily come by as that, although the ending picks up; and four hartyhars,
the dimmest of which is Joe Gores’ “The Criminal,” which ought to have
been left to languish pornographically in Adam, from which it came. Mr.
Gores thinks rape is chucklesome; he ought to read Chelsea Quinn Yarbro’s
story. Miriam Allen de Ford’s “The Daughter of the Tree” is pleasant, but
it’s not s.f. and doesn’t belong here.
Norman Spinrad’s The Iron Dream is really a science fiction novel by Adolf
Hitler called Lord of The Swastika but Avon copped out. Spinrad has been
trying to convict humanity of sin for some time now; here he finally does
it. Lord is a changeling that Spinrad has plopped into our sword-and-sorcery
cradle and the damned creature is so close to the real thing that we can’t
disown it. The narcissism, the beautifully done self-righteousness, the
preoccupation with clothes and gear, the magical ease of victory, the
REVIEWS 95
screamingly funny phallic obsession – it’s all there, so exciting that you
can’t help enjoying it and so God-awful that you ought to hate yourself
for it. There are patches of pure fun, but by some eerie artistry “Hitler’s”
novel is both serious and seriously written. Moreover the book is a fasci-
nating, genuine, alternative universe – part of this is in Hitler’s novel (which
is itself a garbled account of Hitler’s real rise to power) and part in the
blurbs, the Afterword (by Homer Whipple, New York, N.Y., 1959), the
puffs on the back, and the list of Hitler’s other novels, which segue slowly
from Emperor of the Asteroids to Tomorrow the World. As Michael Moorcock,
the famous sword-and-sorcery writer, comments on the back cover, “This
exciting and tense fantasy adventure … is bound to earn Hitler the credit
he so richly deserves!” A lovely book, and a deserved crack on the knuckles
of more than just sword-and-sorcery addicts.
When will science fiction learn that we love it for itself alone? James Gunn’s
The Listeners is two books, a wonderful science fiction novel (concentrated
in sections called Computer Run and some of the scientific work on the
novel’s Project to communicate with extra-terrestrial civilizations) and
carefully variegated impossible people who all have their faith in life
revived by the Project (five of them!) and go drearily through “human
interest” situations, e.g. lonely wifehood, father–son conflict, etc. Period-
ically we have to sit still for this “human” stuff – it’s not inept or crude,
just dead – to be rewarded by the following (the static of space):
He turned the knob once more, and the sound was a babble of distant
voices, some shouting, some screaming, some conversing calmly,
some whispering – all of them trying beyond desperation to commu-
nicate, and everything just below the level of intelligibility. If he
closed his eyes, MacDonald could almost see their faces, pressed
against a distant screen, distorted with the awful effort to make
themselves heard and understood. (p. 18)
This is the subject. This is the soul of the book. The rest is flubdub. If
Scribners insisted on it, Scribner must learn, and if part of Mr. Gunn insisted
on it, he must learn. The good parts are so good that the bad become insup-
portable – there are real scientific quotations (which give the effect of a
dialogue between real scientists who have in fact never met) and catalogs
of star names and other wonders, and then there are silly things you could
pick up in any kind of routine fiction. Despite this, and despite the plethora
of literary quotations (no writers ought to expose their own prose to that
kind of comparison) the book is good enough to be worth reading. But it
hurts.
Robert Silverberg’s Dying Inside is a dry, often witty, low-keyed, realistic

novel about a present-day telepath who is losing his gift (the only thing
that makes his life worthwhile), as close to mainstream realism as science
fiction can get without moving out of s.f. altogether. Telepathy (reception
only) is presented as a kind of addiction, something like a schizoid inner
life. I find the book interesting but not moving; I suspect I’m just not on
its wavelength and that readers who are will react to it as heavy tragedy
(which it is). Everything in it is present in fine detail: the psychoanalytic-
Jewish milieu, the overly bright child, the lying parents, the dreadful
closeness which is paradoxically linked to lovelessness and isolation. Unlike
the quick, flashy bizarrerie of most s.f., Dying has the density and length
of a realistic novel (which essentially it is). One might quarrel with the
subject (this kind of hero is common in recent mainstream fiction) or with
some of the writing (there’s occasional redundancy and the book could’ve
benefited from a final careful trim), but the solidity of it is beyond question,
as is the quality. It’s also the first time Mr. Silverberg has used his extraor-
dinary wit in print, e.g.:
In those days there was an old cast-iron kiosk at street level marking
the entrance to the depths; it was positioned between two lanes of
traffic, and students, their absent minds full of Kierkegaard and
Sophocles and Fitzgerald, were forever stepping in front of cars and
getting killed. Now the kiosk is gone and the subway entrances are
placed more rationally, on the sidewalks. (p. 7)
In my February 1971 column I mentioned a book called The Way It Spozed

To Be and (as usual) got my references wrong. The book is by James
Herndon and is the record of his one year’s teaching in a metropolitan
ghetto school. It’s a good book but it is not (as I called it) a collection of
writing done by Harlem schoolchildren. I would appreciate any infor-
mation about such a collection which, as I remember, did come out at
about that time.
REVIEWS 97
Bad Moon Rising. Ed. Thomas Disch (Harper & Row, $6.95). Paradox Lost.
Frederic Brown (Random House, $5.95). The Star Road. Gordon Dickson
(Doubleday, $5.95). Complex Man. Marie Farca (Doubleday, $5.95)
Intellectuals try to cope with their anxiety by telling each other

atrocity stories about America … What is the consequence? A stiff-
ening of spines? A clearing of the mind and will for action? I doubt
it … People who tell such stories are, unconsciously, seeking to create
a climate which will justify in their own minds the concessions they
are making.1
Radical movements are always plagued with people who want to

lose … want in effect to be put under protective custody.2
In the 1950s somebody defined urban renewal as “replacing Negroes with

trees,” and I’m beginning to think that in the same way too many typical
science fiction horror stories are not the universal dystopias they pretend
to be, but rather the unhappy wails of privilege-coming-to-an-end. Take,
for example, the usual Overpopulation Story, in which Americans have to
live without private ranch houses, or the typical Pollution Story in which
far too often the real gripe is that “we” must subsist on soybeans and
vegetable starch (as if the vast majority of the human race since the Bronze
Age hadn’t been doing just that) or the Violence Story which deplores the
fact (as someone recently pointed out) that violence is becoming democ-
ratized.
As Thomas Disch, editor of Bad Moon Rising, says in his Introduction,
science fiction is “a partisan literature” inevitably involved with the didactic
because it presents not what exists (about which one can at least pretend
to be objective) but what might exist. Like a liberal late Roman Mr. Disch
prefaces his collection with the statement that “almost everything is going
from bad to worse,” but the collection doesn’t think so; it is really on the
side of the early Christian radicals and so am I. Keep this in mind as I tell
you that I judge Bad Moon to be a splendid book. It is (by the way) not
1 David Reisman, Individualism Reconsidered, MacMillan (The Free Press), pp. 124–
27.
2 Philip Slater, The Pursuit of Loneliness, Beacon Press, p. 122.
labeled “science fiction,” but a recent article of Samuel Delany’s3 has

convinced me that we’re fighting a losing battle, not in trying to get public
recognition of s.f. (which is possible) but in trying to get the distributors to
let us out of our ghetto. Bad Moon will at least be read by people not yet
acquainted with science fiction, for most of the book is indeed s.f. and most
of it is extraordinarily good.
Not only does Bad Moon have a cumulative impact, which is rare among
anthologies, but Mr. Disch has managed to split almost all the themes
treated into at least two stories, this odd doubleness – the Look Again
technique – being the essence of propaganda. Thus we have two stories by
George Effinger, one a Kafkaesque tale of Little Man vs. Big Government
(“Relatives”) that is frankly awful, and another (“Two Sadnesses”) which
will enchant all lovers of Winnie the Pooh and Wind in the Willows, though
they may find themselves hiding under their beds afterwards. There is a
passionate, fully detailed, well-written New York paranoia story by Harlan
Ellison4 (“The Whimper of Whipped Dogs”) which puts forward the (to
my mind, untenable) view that violence is caused by Satan or maybe
Original Sin; there is a similar, quiet, well-written tale by Charles Naylor
(“We Are Dainty Little People”) which not only shows you what but also
why. One might contrast Malcolm Braly’s “An Outline of History,” an old-
fashioned Analog tale that not only operates on the village-atheist level but
also has (Black) characters the author has gotten from bad movies, with
Gene Wolfe’s “Hour of Trust,” which watches the next American revolution
from the viewpoint of an expatriate businessman. Mr. Wolfe not only has
complicated, real, human characters – although I think he romanticizes
his revolutionaries – but also he knows the how and why of what’s
happening. He is the only writer in the book to ask the crucial question
“Who profits?” right out loud, and the only one to display a tired, detached
sympathy I can only call “European” (because I don’t know what else to
call it, really). Mr. Wolfe’s astonishing qualities as a writer now extend to
historical analysis; his raisonneur is the perfect character, historically
speaking, a parasite/jester in the person of an expensive, ironic, intelligent
pimp.
Dropping the pairing-up game (which is becoming unmanageable) the
best piece of propaganda I have ever read is in this book: Kate Wilhelm’s
“The Village.” It carries its own split; its subject (the war in Southeast Asia)
is folded back on itself in a doubleness that is the subject of the story. This
3 “Popular Culture, S-F Publishing, and Poetry: A Letter To a Critic,” Science Fiction
Studies, Spring 1973, pp. 29–43.
4 In West Coast paranoia stories only the police are Bad; in New York City paranoia
stories everybody is Bad. Needless to say, much paranoia is socially justified,
but genre ordinarily evades the why, which is all-important.
REVIEWS 99
is the first time I’ve seen Ms. Wilhelm use the slick-magazine origins of
her people and places (not her treatment of them) so savagely and well.
The tale, which was written several years ago, was good enough to frighten
the slick magazines into rejecting it; only now does it see print. At the same
level of effect – and even more frightening now – is Norman Rush’s
“Riding,” a perfect commentary on the quotations at the beginning of this
review. Mr. Rush calls it “riding to the trap,” i.e. the gallows; it is criticism
of the Left (?) made from the Left. (Mr. Rush’s other story, “Fighting
Fascism,” is equally understated and also ironic, but I’m afraid it lost me.)
Kit Reed’s “On Behalf of the Product” has a somewhat smaller target in
view (“Miss Wonderful Land of Ours”) but covers it very thoroughly
indeed, and Carol Emshwiller’s “Strangers” is routine Emshwiller, which
means very, very good; she has not, as usual, wasted one word. Mr. Disch’s
own “Everyday Life in the Later Roman Empire” is merely brilliant; it is
part of a novel about a future New York City, parts of which have come
out lately in various places. This piece is not quite the best, which means
(if one can judge by what’s already been printed) that the novel will be a
stunner.5 There are also two fine poems by Peter Schjeldahl, “Ho Chi Minh
Elegy” and “For Apollo 11,” the first New Left, the second hair-raisingly
good science fiction. John Sladek’s “The Great Wall of Mexico” attacks its
subject by way of an eerie, funny, subversive, almost-surrealism quite
impossible to describe; you may get some of the flavor of it if I tell you that
the FBI is using retired Senior Citizens to listen to bugged conversations
in public places, and that one of them, loyal as he is, vows after his first
two hours’ excruciating listening that he will never say anything dull in a
public place again.
Marilyn Hacker has two poems, “Elegy for Janis Joplin” and “Untoward
Occurrence at Embassy Poetry Reading,” that strike me as not her best;
there is a charming but slight pastiche by Ron Padgett and Dick Gallup
(“Cold Turkey”), and a bad West Coast paranoia story by Raylyn Moore
called “Where Have All the Followers Gone,” whose characters are
obviously doomed to expire from sheer grubbiness long before they get
gassed. Michael Moorcock’s “An Apocalypse: Some Scenes from European
Life” is well-intentioned but awfully clunky, i.e. one of those stories in
which people speak translatorese (“Are those the bad soldiers, Mother?”
“No, Karl, they are the good soldiers. They are freeing Paris of those who
have brought the city to ruin.”) and – as in bad propaganda movies –
5 Author’s Note: It was a stunner. It was 334, published in 1974 by Avon. Unfor-
tunately someone messed up the order of the novel’s parts. Read first “The Death
of Socrates,” second “Emancipation,” third “Angouleme,” fourth “Bodies,” fifth
“Everyday Life” (etc.), and sixth “334.”
nothing is there for its own sake but only for the grim, grim lesson. As
another critic once put it, the minute you see a flower growing in the dreary
mud of the back yard, you know it’s only there so a brutal Cossack can
step on it. (Mr. Moorcock’s recent novel, Warlord of the Air makes similar
historical points and does so much better.)
Bad Moon ends with “Notes from the Pre-dynastic Epoch,” the best story
by Robert Silverberg I have ever read. To my mind his work has always
suffered from the lack of really strict cutting, but here he has made every
word tell. Moreover, the chilliness that hangs around even his best work
is gone, and the result is a direct appeal of extraordinary poignancy.
Paradox Lost by the late Frederic Brown is a collection of stories “never

before published in book form” (according to the jacket copy), four from
the ’40s, three from 1950/51, and the rest from the early ’60s. The early
tales are raw wonders-and-marvels with homey-pulp characters and large
holes in the science; the execution improves in the later stories, but they
remain slick mousetraps at which the reader must collude by accepting a
lot of arbitrary givens for the sake of one final twist. In James Blish’s terms,
only “Puppet Show” (here) has an idea about its idea; it (like so many of
the stories) would make a perfect TV show because actors and production
can supply the characterization, the scenery, in short the denseness of
texture, that Mr. Brown doesn’t. At bottom these stories are padded
anecdotes. (The funniest, “Aelurophobe,” almost makes it as pure
anecdote.) Some Brownian notions are fascinating – for example, “Double
Standard” explores the world of TV characters who exist not as actors but
as persons in another world – but even here the only difference the author
can find between art and life is sex and profanity. The book contains the
famous “Knock,” as well as “Something Green,” a story I found breath-
taking at fourteen, but which now looks much the worse for wear. Others
are “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik,” “Paradox Lost,” “The Last Train,” “It Didn’t
Happen,” “Obedience,” “Ten-Percenter,” “Nothing Sirius,” and “The New
One” (the kind of American myth Stephen Vincent Benet did so much
better). The stories are badly over-written (you can skip every second word
and still follow them perfectly well), and aside from some nice bits of humor
(a baby fire elemental says, “I’m going to look out through the curtain,
Papa. I’ll keep my glow down to a glimmer”) there’s nothing here to think
or feel about.
Gordon Dickson’s The Star Road starts with a slick mousetrap of a story
(entitled “Mousetrap”!) but even this one, written in 1952, has more to it
than the single plot twist. Mr. Dickson never constructs an ingenious toy
merely for the sake of seeing it spin. The collection, which ranges from the
REVIEWS 101
late ’50s through the ’60s, has the usual interesting and varied Dickson
aliens, good if they’re powerless and/or furry, usually bad if they’re
powerful. Each story has both an intellectual puzzle and something else:
in “On Messenger Mountain” an exceptional man learns that he will always
be lonely; “Jackal’s Meal” shows us the conflict of military and diplomatic
temperaments (and aims); “Mousetrap” deals with the tragedy of a brain-
washed wreck who wants to respond to good (and furry) aliens but can’t;
“Whatever Gods There Be” illustrates the self-command of the title
(Henley’s Invictus – Mr. Dickson often quotes poems); and “Hilifter” is a
future Boston Tea Party that dwells on the contrast between romantic
expectations and reality. Less successful stories are “The Catch,” which
ought not simply name the seduction of power and authority but show it;
“The Christmas Present,” in which the sacrifice of alien for human seems
not only sentimentally excessive but also unnecessary; and “3-Part Puzzle”
which posits that humans are superior to aliens because we have moral
ideals, a proposition George Bernard Shaw took a much dimmer view of
in his play Man of Destiny. (He argues that the English are the most dangerous
nation on earth because they can convince themselves that what they want
is also virtuous.) Mr. Dickson is a propagandist whose propaganda passes
unnoticed because it’s so familiar; “Building on the Line” (the most recent
story in the book) is pure Kipling, and I find it, as I do much of Kipling,
morally revolting. The author carefully makes his s.f. situation parallel with
the building of the railroads across America in the 19th century, from the
song the men sing to the ghastly conditions under which they work. (Who
profits by saving all that money and time?) As in Kipling, it’s not the impor-
tance of the job that justifies the romantic heroism but vice versa; according
to the author’s spokesman, “fat tourists” will use the Line when it’s
complete. Mr. Dickson even duplicates Kipling’s contempt for the remote
administrator (here the Research Department, which doesn’t understand
front-line conditions), his disregard for the annoyed natives, whose front
parlors are being dug up (so to speak), and his mystique about “team spirit”
– though the animal analogies used in the story are actually species
solidarity, a characteristic human beings either don’t have or manage to
control (at times) with great ease. There are no underpaid Chinese working
on the Line or Irishmen who can’t get jobs anywhere else; all are volun-
teers so it’s O.K. to ruin their comfort, health, and even lives, and then pay
them with Glory. I should add that Mr. Dickson writes magnificently of
the psychology of stress and delirium, little as I like his politics, his Men’s
House mystique, or the appointment ceremony in which the human race
is the Line and the Line is the Team and so on, all of which has eerie
overtones of Fuehrer = Volk = Partei. (But the protagonist is delirious at
the time so maybe he’s distorting things.) The collection is half fair and
half good, the line of demarcation coinciding pretty much with the age of
the stories, the later ones being the better ones.
For reasons known only to itself, Doubleday has published a non-book

called Complex Man by Marie Farca. It’s very hard to read and is full of awful
scientific bloopers: e.g. people no longer sleep (“Food, drugs, and purity of
air compensate for this”), people whose legs have atrophied from birth
onwards can learn to walk at age twenty-five, everybody uses motorized
chairs hovering on “air jets” (imagine what a storm this would kick up
indoors!), and there are “island” satellites of earth which have Earth-
normal atmospheres and gravity. The author seems caught up in some very
detailed, private, untransformed fantasy; you never get the details you
need (e.g. something that will enable you to tell the characters apart during
the first 100 pages), and you get vast amounts of dramatically irrelevant
detail (mostly architectural, including diagrams). Almost nothing is drama-
tized until the last fifth of the book. Ms. Farca might eventually turn into
an s.f. writer, for she has lots of utterly uncontrolled imagination, but she
is not any kind of writer now.
The book I asked for in my last column is The Me Nobody Knows, ed. Stephen
Joseph (Avon, 1969). I want to thank all those who wrote in, especially
Mr. Leonard Bloomfield of Manhattan, whose address I mislaid and to
whom, therefore, I can’t write a personal letter.
Born With the Dead. Robert Silverberg (Random House, $5.95). Some Dreams
Are Nightmares. James Gunn (Scribners, $6.95). Total Eclipse. John Brunner
(Doubleday, $5.95). Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said. Philip. K. Dick
(Doubleday $6.95). The Texas–Israeli War: 1999. Howard Waldrop & Jake
Saunders (Ballantine, $1.25)
REVIEWS 103
A reviewer’s hardest task is to define standards. “Good” can mean almost

anything: what the British call “a good read,” “for those who like it, this is
what they’ll like,” “it won’t poison you,” “good enough for minor enter-
tainment,” “mildly pleasant,” “intelligent, thoughtful, and interesting,”
“charming!” and just plain “good” – excluding the range of better, from
fine to splendid to superb to great. Reviewers also tend to adopt a
paradoxical sliding scale in measuring a book’s quality, i.e. the more
ambitious a book, the more it’s likely to fail; yet the competent, low-level
“success” can be less valuable and interesting than the flawed, fascinating,
incomplete “failure.” For example, in July 1973 I reviewed James Gunn’s
The Listeners (which belongs emphatically in category two, above) and
managed to make it sound worse than Norman Spinrad’s The Iron Dream,
a considerably lower-level (although fun and interesting) category one.
Novels don’t only provide different kinds of pleasures; they involve a reader
more or less profoundly. Listeners was “bad” because parts of it were so
wonderfully good. Dream was “good” partly because it demanded so little
of the reader – some of this by the author’s deliberate choice, which only
adds to the complexity of the whole business.
None of this month’s hardcover novels lives up to its author’s own best
work and in that sense they are not good books. They’re certainly not in
the “good-by-any-standards” class. Yet none of them is in the droopy-
eyeball or loathsome class, either, and all have some excellences. The
reviewer’s business (as so many reviewers have said) is distinguishing
between various levels of failure, keeping in mind that by “good” here I
mean very high standards indeed.
Robert Silverberg is a sossidge-factory trying to become an artist.1 To
my mind he’s done so only twice, in “Notes from the Pre-Dynastic Epoch”
(Tom Disch’s Bad Moon Rising) and “Schwartz Between the Galaxies” (Judy-
Lynn del Rey’s Stellar 1, reviewed next month). Born consists of three
related novellas written from 1971 on, two of them (“Born With the Dead”
and “Thomas the Proclaimer”) interesting but eventually unsatisfying, and
one (“Going”) just as unsatisfying and considerably less interesting. Mr.
Silverberg has hit on a fine idea for making quasi-novels; there are some
unnecessary chronological connections (the tales are supposed to happen
in the same future world but quite obviously needn’t); yet the similarity
of theme does enhance all three. They are good – and bad – in exactly the
same way: in each some final enlightenment is promised but in none does
it occur. Silverberg gets close, especially in the first, “Born With the Dead.”
1 Author’s Note: Seeing this statement in print today makes me cringe as I did then
(1975), as it had no relation to what I had intended to say and what I thought
I had said. Please ignore it.
The details here are almost perfect: the “Deads” (who have been
“rekindled”) living in their “Cold Towns,” segregated from the “warms,”
attracted to tombs, shooting living re-creations of extinct animals, eating
but not caring what they eat, hating the vibrations of life, oddly waxy-
looking, very slowly-aging, almost telepathic among themselves, people
to whom “nothing matters … it’s all only a joke” and who have lost every
aesthetic sense in the present (to judge from the monumental bleakness
of their Cold Towns) and who live, in some elaborate, soulless fashion,
behind the psychic equivalent of a sheet of glass. They are modern cousins
of our old friends, the Undead; yet when the hero’s obsession with tracking
down his Dead wife (an inexplicable mania unless he is really trying to
become a Dead himself, which doesn’t seem to be the case) brings him into
the world of the Deads in earnest – he’s such a nuisance that his wife and
her companions have him killed and rekindled – we find out no more about
the Deads than we knew before. Up to a point the story is immensely
suggestive, but when it comes to the crunch, Silverberg knows more about
it than we do, despite the obvious tremendousness of the theme (life and
letting go vs. static soullessness) and some extraordinarily fine touches,
e.g. the wife’s archaeological “find,” which she has invented, is not only
an elaborate joke but an elliptical description of the interaction between
her live husband and herself. The story simply does not deliver. And it’s
the best of the three.
The second novella, “Thomas the Proclaimer” (under its highly polished
surface) is another of James Blish’s “one-lung catastrophes.” Again there
is so much detail to admire that the fundamental staleness at the center is
almost lost – until the very end, when one realizes that the “miracle” which
begins the story (the Earth’s standing still for twenty-four hours without
any of the physical effects that ought to occur therefrom) will never be
explained, that the author (again) knows no more than you or I, and that
the story, for all its echoes of the story of Christ and its discussions of
religion, is basically that old-time world-catastrophe, to which (as Blish
pointed out) the range of characters’ reactions must necessarily be pretty
narrow. The periphery of the tale is as interesting as it can be made: prophet
Thomas has a manager/inspirer called “Saul Kraft” who does to Thomas’s
religion something like what St. Paul (formerly “Saul”!) did to Christ’s; the
chapter entitled “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters” (about the
conversion of an atheist physicist) is extremely funny – “And the laws of
momentum were confounded, as was I” – but the main event still seems
to me merely Silverberg in love with gloom and doom. The inner life of
Thomas (which might be the story) is never made concrete, and Thomas’s
death is neither moving nor interesting but merely annoying.
REVIEWS 105
“Going”, the third novella, is about voluntary dying in a long-lived

Utopia of 2095. One would swear the author had been reading Max
Beerbohm’s diabolical parody of Wells (“Sitting Up For the Dawn” in A
Christmas Garland) with its ceremony of “Making Way,” its visit of the doomed
man’s entire family, and the sickly-sweet, sentimental “healthiness” of the
whole business. There are interesting details here too, but the real problem
– when (and why) will the hero choose to die? – is answered with pure
argle-bargle (“in my unreadiness lies my readiness”) while the realistic
psychological progression that leads to the end doesn’t allow you to deduce
what in God’s name is going on. Perhaps death is not a possible subject (as
Wittgenstein said, “it is not lived through”); perhaps private, untrans-
formed material intrudes in the stories without being fully expressed.
James Gunn’s Nightmares (another collection of quasi-related pieces) has

an excellent, even brilliant, introduction in which he points out that the
novella is the ideal length for s.f. (I agree) and then refutes himself by
providing two novellas, a long short story, and a short story, of which the
short story is by far the best. The introduction is so good that is ought to
be printed in a more portable place (S.-F. Studies? Extrapolation?) Mr. Gunn
not only indicates the peculiar problems of the novel length but also
carefully lists the false solutions to them, all of which are, unfortunately,
familiar to s.f. readers. The fiction (which would be entertaining enough
in another context) is here put to considerable shame by the excellence of
the introduction – actually the two come not only from different worlds,
but also from different decades, “The Cave of Night” (a very good read)
having been first published in 1955, “The Hedonist” in 1954, “New Blood”
in 1962, and “The Medic” in 1957. All are pleasantly old-fashioned,
sometimes a little foolishly so, but in general they are obvious, noble,
colorful, satisfying stories of good behavior on the part of people who find
out that they’re living in tyrannies (the two novellas) or (in the long short
story) represent evolution and life as against power and its rigidity. There
are discussions about happiness (“The Hedonist”), the tyranny of medicine
and the fear of death (“The Medic”), power &c. (see above, “New Blood”)
which are solved by personal virtue and conversion to the too-simple, old
fashioned s.f. answers, i.e. fear of death must not become “excessive” (?),
freedom is better than happiness, and so on, which are fun but which
promptly lower to almost nothing the reasonably sophisticated level on
which the discussions were conducted in the first place. The only piece
that really explores its theme is “The Cave of Night,” with a triply-ironic
ending that transforms the obvious (apparent) heroics of the story into
something very different. The author’s only real errors are in “New Blood,”
in which a man sheds thirty years in a week, which means that his hair is
growing at a rate 52 times faster than normal and his teeth 365 times faster.
He doesn’t even eat more than usual; where does the energy for this come
from? Nor did Mr. Gunn realize in 1962 that hair cannot change color
except by growth from the roots, that teeth can’t grow without tooth-buds
(and how long do they take to form?), and that brain cells do not divide
after birth. Gunn has the odd quirk of highlighting his worst bits by placing
them next to his best; here the errors are in a story which is otherwise
almost pedantically accurate about medical details.
John Brunner’s Total Eclipse and Philip Dick’s Flow My Tears, the Policeman
Said. (sic) are hard to assess, since Mr. Brunner can no more be unintel-
ligent than Mr. Dick can lose his feeling for the gritty, chancy irrelevancies
of real life. But neither book coheres. Eclipse reads like the first draft of a
fine novel John Brunner ought to write some day and Tears like a beginning
that could not find an end – the book literally ends with the equivalent of
“He woke up and found it was all a dream.”
Eclipse deals with several things: a fine scientific puzzle about the sudden,
planet-wide demise of genuinely alien aliens (almost the whole book), the
death of a human colony on the same planet (the last forty pages of 187),
a man’s “becoming” one of the aliens in a prosthetic simulacrum (twenty-
odd pages, some of them brilliant), parallels between the aliens’ fatal flaw
(the solution to this one is smashingly good) and the humans’ (conven-
tional stuff about war, &c., which gets natural and unforced only long after
the human research team becomes isolated from Earth), and the
conversion of a tyrannical Blue Meanie by plain-speaking, which is damn-
fool nonsense and occupies fifty pages of padding.
It’s easy to see how these fit together intellectually (the paranoid tyrant,
the possible death of Earth, the parallel flaws, and the two races lying dead
on one planet, done in by the same preference for individual gain over
species gain) but they have not been made to cohere dramatically. Eclipse
is worth reading for the scientific puzzle alone and the way the author sets
up a logical, rigorous process of reasoning which only appears to lead deeper
and deeper into mystery: here all the details cohere, and in one moment.
Knowing what Doubleday usually pays for science fiction (I will be glad to
be refuted, but $2000 is the highest figure I’ve ever heard of) I can only
conclude that if Brunner had had the time, we’d have a better book.
Tears (also Doubleday’s) is non-coherent in the opposite way; Dick
apparently starts with the overtones and lets them (when he is at his best,
as in Counter-Clock World) produce their own organically whole plot.2 Tears
2 Counter-Clock World is built on the dichotomy of the Hobart Effect, i.e. the physical
resurrection of the dead, and the deaths of almost everyone you care about in
the book – as a line of poetry (which is quoted more than once) says, “It is the
lives, the lives, the lives, that die.”
REVIEWS 107
is best in its digressions and at its periphery and weakest at the center; the
genetically special hero is a very unconvincing superman who in fact has
only his charm (and perpetually bad judgment). The theme of finding out
what life is like among the proles (i.e. losing your money and power) is
God-awfully stale, nor does the author really care about it, and his attempt
at the end – I mean I think so – to replace the hero’s second reality by a
third only piles up inconsistencies and unanswered questions instead of
attacking our very perceptions of reality. Some of the digressions are fine
by any standards; for example the telepathic clerk in a cheap hotel who
says cheerfully, “I know this hotel isn’t much, but we have no bugs. Once
we had Martian sand fleas, but no more”; Monica Buff who is a compulsive
shoplifter, with a big wicker bag she got in Baja California once, and who
never wears shoes or washes her hair (she’s only talked about!); Ruth Rae
(something of a character herself) who tells a marvelous story about the
pet rabbit (“lipperty-lipperty”) who wanted to be a cat; the agreeable Jesus-
Freak cop who answers Ruth Rae’s frightened, “I hate L. A.” (she’s being
arrested) with an earnest, “So do I. But we must learn to live with it; it’s
there.” The most brilliant character in the book is a waif called Kathy, all
innocence and psychotic emotional blackmail, who has violent temper
tantrums in which she goes rigid and screams (she calls them “mystical
trances”) and who allows the author to render with frightening verisimil-
itude what happens when you try to tightrope-walk a conversation with
a skillful, vicious, grown-up eight-month-old. Unfortunately the book also
has failures like Alys Buckman, who is a lesbian and married to her brother
and a drug freak and an undefined “fetishist” (she wears tight pants, a
leather shirt, hoop earrings, and a chain-link belt), and a sadist (her stiletto-
heeled boots are hardly lesbian), and an electronic-sex addict and
lobotomized in some way never clearly described, and a collector of
“bondage” photos (another male specialty). In short, she is pure diabola ex
machina, a male fantasy of a macho, homosexual, leather, S & M freak
projected on to a woman.3 The Epilog is unfortunately like a cartoon Punch
once printed: author-at-typewriter with the caption “The hell with it.
Several shots rang out and they all fell dead. The End.” In any other
profession Tears would be called a good, sometimes fascinating, example
of overwork and the prolific author would be pensioned generously for
several years in order to mellow and recuperate.
3 John Rechy, a homosexual author, has a character very like this in one of his
recent books and C. S. Lewis’s Fairy Hardcastle in That Hideous Strength is another.
If a woman can’t be a lady, she automatically becomes Marlon Brando in The
Wild Ones. Pfeh. See other recent stories about hairy, muscled Women’s Libbers
(yech) who smoke cigars (chomp) and cut up men (help!)
The Texas–Israeli War: 1999 is a pacifist’s dream. It is literally a bloody bore.

A war story with (few) futuristic frills, it is about nothing else and appeals
to nothing else. What is being celebrated or exorcised here I do not know,
although I can tell (for example) what makes Patron of the Arts, William
Rotsler’s giant, marshmallow-filled waterbed of a fuzzy non-novel, so
appealing to horny, fourteen-year-old male virgins who are dying of
loneliness and so unbearably numbing to anybody else. The minutiae of
war (in War) are vivid and accurate, the people non-existent, and the whole
novel somehow accidental, as if it had been founded on the Bright Idea of
a one-line joke (the title). There are lots of better war stories around by
strange authors like “Norman Mailer,” “James Jones,” “Bill Mauldin,” and
a promising newcomer called “Ernest Hemingway.” Look them up. You’ll
be pleasantly surprised.
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, March 1975
Frankenstein Unbound. Brian Aldiss (Random House, $5.95). The Dispossessed.

Ursula K. Le Guin (Harper & Row, $7.95). Joy in Our Cause. Carol Emshwiller
(Harper & Row, $6.95). Stellar 1. Ed. Judy Lynn del Rey (Ballantine, $1.25)
In the words of Noel Coward, Aldiss Is At It Again, frolicking with Time,

merrily imitating other people’s writing styles, and naturally bewildering
the poor critic of Locus who cannot peg a late 18th-century novel written
in modern English (and impossible American), a hero who’s supposed to
be Everyman but is really Nobody, and the out-and-out treachery of any
novel (except Dracula) which begins with a letter to “My dearest Mina”!
Aldiss’s description of Mary Shelley’s book in his critical work, Billion Year
Spree, fits his own novel perfectly:
a quilt of varied colour … and occasional strong scenes. Contrast is

what she is after … the preoccupation with plot had not yet arrived.
(p. 22)
REVIEWS 109
While Percy Shelley was writing Prometheus Unbound, Mary Shelley (at
eighteen) was writing Frankenstein: A Modern Prometheus – two opposing
views of the consequences of modern industrialization. Hence Aldiss’s title
and his fascination with “this first great myth of the industrial age.”1 The
structure of Unbound is not the usual cause-and-effect dramatic narrative,
but a hyperbolic curve: from a deliberately flattened, neutral, conventional,
s.f. twenty-first-century to the clumsy world of Mary Shelley’s clumsy
novel, to the historical milieu of its author (the portrayal of the literary
circle of Percy, Lord Byron, and Mary at the Villa Diodati is particularly
good) back to a sophisticated, “opened-up” version of Mary Shelley’s novel,
and from there to a splendid far-future world (with odd echoes of Hodgson’s
The Night Land). The aesthetic spiral from the flat, twenty-first century of
the beginning to the marvelous far-future world of the end are part of what
the novel is about; so is the “unfolding” of Mary Shelley’s book in Brian
Aldiss’s book – Spree calls the original Frankenstein “an exhausting journey
without maps.”2 So is Unbound.
There is no question, I think, about the last quarter of the novel, where
Aldiss breaks free of history, as it were, and writes his own version of the
myth, but Joe Bodenland (New-Texan and former Presidential advisor) is
such a clunkhead that it may not be possible to use him as a first-person
narrator. Sometimes the results are extremely funny, as in his letter to
Mary Shelley complaining that two of her characters, Clerval and Elizabeth,
have been treating him very badly, and that she doesn’t really understand
Elizabeth’s personality at all. But parts sag – for example, Joe’s trudging
ruminations on the book’s theme, handled so much better by Percy and
Byron at the Villa Diodati; there Aldiss knows exactly when to interrupt a
didactic passage, but Joe (alas) is unstoppable and far too dense to realize
(another example) that his “timeslips” are merely novelistic time. When
it occurs to him at the end of the book that he may be a character in a
novel by Brian Aldiss, he comes out with it in a painfully flat-footed way.
Somewhere James Blish says, apropos of the anti-novel, Report on Proba-
bility A, that even Aldiss’s failures are definitive. This is waffling, but it does
describe the effect of Unbound. The book is complex, cool, unemotional
(except at the end), and very distanced. It is sometimes boring and large
parts of it require Brian Aldiss to pretend to be a bad writer. Yet the novel
sticks in my mind with extraordinary force. Even the fact that Part One is
epistolary (a technique not used seriously in literature for more than a
century) evokes a kind of senseless pleasure. Unbound, a book very much
about time, flowers in one’s memory just as its impressive ending grows
1 Brian Aldiss, Billion Year Spree, Doubleday, N.Y., 1973, p. 23.

2 Ibid., p. 23.
out of its superficially bad beginning, just as Bodenland3 is the necessary

cipher in the story, like the zero: a living place-mark. A definitive failure?
A definition of failure? Something like that. And at times very beautiful.
(But read Frankenstein first.)
Robert Edmond Jones, the Great American stage designer, once said that
a theatrical mise-en-scène is not a picture, but an image. Similarly, no Utopia
can provide a genuine blueprint for social change, only a poetic image of
what we need or want, and can thus (like a good Dystopia) illuminate the
questions we need to ask. For all its beauty, The Dispossessed wrecks itself
on just this issue, and since Ursula Le Guin is neither hack nor craftswoman,
but an artist, the inauthenticities show.
The rift between authentic and unauthentic runs through the whole book.
Anarres, the novel’s Utopia, is bleak, beautiful, and brilliantly realized, but
Urras is a stand-in for Earth, and once you spot the models (Ben-bili is the
Third World, Thu the Soviet Union, A-Io the Western Democracies) Urras
becomes redundant; why should we be interested in a fancy way of disguising
what we already know? Dispossessed is not satire, which would thrive on such
one-to-one correspondence. In fact, A-Io is not even American; it’s literary-
European (a copy of a copy) which leads the author to some awful
inconsistencies: a capitalism that neither expands uncontrollably nor experi-
ences drastic depressions, women with the social position of the 1840s but
with contraception and a stable population (hence few children), ultra-
modern technology plus an Edwardian (at the latest) social structure. Even
the scenery evaporates – it’s all kleggitch (the Annaresti word for drudgery
as opposed to meaningful play-work) technically polished but unreal. One
has only to compare the mass protest in A-Io with a similar scene in When
the Sleeper Wakes to see that Le Guin does not know slums, the poor, mass
strikes, police riots, politics, economics, revolutionary undergrounds, society
ladies, or aristocrats. Few writers do. The oddity is that she conscientiously
insists on writing about them anyway. (One extraordinary goof is that
women’s fashions haven’t changed in a century and a half – haven’t the Ioti
capitalists invented planned obsolescence?)
There are rifts even in Anarres, generally between what we are shown
and what we are told. The anarchism/syndicalism of the society is all there,
right down to its roots, like the climate, but (for example) we are told that
Anarresti children copulate with each other bisexually, breaking no taboos,
yet we see adolescent boys clubbing together to avoid girls and the disturbing
advent of sex. We are told that much of the adult population remains
promiscuous throughout life, but the only such person we see is prying,
3 The name obviously bodes something, but I can’t catch the reference.
REVIEWS 111
nasty, meddling and comical. We are told that one (male) character is
homosexual, yet he acts asexual4 and has no love affairs (except once, with
the hero, but the hero only does it out of friendship because the hero is
heterosexual). We see no other homosexual men, and never even hear of
homosexual women (this is not explained). We are told, near the end of
the book, that it is common for a child’s father to be the nurturing parent;
yet Shevek, the hero, suffers from his mother’s absence (early in the book),
and she herself seems to feel guilty about it. In all the partnerships we see,
it is assumed that children stay with the mother. Furthermore, although
we are told that children are raised communally after the age of about three,
the only children besides Shevek that we see at close range have (by some
fluke) been raised privately. (We never find out what happens to the
children of unpartnered people.) Even the theatre, which we are told is the
most important Anarresti art form, and which causes the downfall of the
one artist in the book (he is a playwright), is invisible. Instead we have
many fine descriptions of – music! Anarres is without artificial gender-roles
(a point Shevek makes explicitly in conversation on Urras) but except for
female administrators (for whom Le Guin seems to have a penchant:
diplomats, work bosses, and such) what we see does not quite match what
we are told. For example, women are physicists et cetera, but most conver-
sations on Urras are between men, and the one female physicist in the
book is senile; we are told that she has done fine work, but she never does
it on stage, while Shevek’s intellectual life is absolutely and authentically
concrete. (I might add that the constant use of “brother” as a form of address
is enough to make your head spin, especially when used for women – and
yet the Anarresti have an invented word, ammar, which could easily be
made genderless, if Le Guin wanted it to be.) The author’s artistic and intel-
lectual impulses seem to be traveling subtly, but persistently, in different
directions, and the (unintentional) result is a romantic radicalism, a
radicalism without teeth.
Something has gone wrong; what, I can only guess at. I suspect that Le
Guin, who is relatively young as an artist, is still in the process of finding
her own voice, a process partly hidden (as in Virginia Woolf’s early work)
by her extraordinary talent. Dispossessed makes uncomfortable forays
(mostly on Urras) into Big, Public Subjects when the author’s real talent
lies elsewhere; Big Subjects begin to glow in her books only when they are
exotic or magical (as in The Left Hand of Darkness or the children’s books)
or have happened long ago or will happen in some indefinite future. In
fact, Le Guin’s talent is not (strictly speaking) dramatic at all, but lyrical,
and such talent can’t deal conventionally with conventional Big
4 A mistake made in And Chaos Died by Ross – um – Roos? Rouse? Somehow I forget.
Happenings, nor should it. What works (and magnificently) in Dispossessed

is indeed what the hero, at one point, calls, “a time outside time … unreal,
enduring, enchanted.” The novel’s Utopia rejects the categories of
higher/lower in favor of central/peripheral (the material on this is fasci-
nating) but the author seems caught in a conventional hierarchy of what
makes subject-matter important. One thing she might try is abandoning
male protagonists, with the burden of tour-de-force characterization they
inevitably impose on a female writer. (And the third-person point of view,
which often produces the same kind of strain – in fact, Dispossessed is author-
omniscient!) Another is to develop the artistic “irresponsibility” (actually
the highest form of responsibility) simply to leave out what doesn’t interest
her; when intellect and emotion part company, it’s intellect that ought to
be abandoned (after a struggle, true, but abandoned).
Needless to say, I carp because the book has earned the right to be judged
by the very highest standards. That it fails as an organic whole by these
standards is both a criticism and a tribute. (The author is, in addition,
exploring new territory; Aldiss’s Unbound, both a more successful and a
lesser book, employs territory Aldiss mapped out long ago.) Anyone who
can write that description of the rocket port on Anarres (the first few
paragraphs of the book) with its thrilling and intensely meaningful figure-
ground reversal is potentially a writer of masterpieces. There are parts of
a masterpiece in Dispossessed (though the title’s echo of Dostoevsky is too
easy) and while carping, I will also wait. As George Bernard Shaw (also a
late starter) once said, the strength of a work of art lies in its strongest, not
its weakest link, and where The Dispossessed is strong, it’s strong indeed.
Nothing can justly describe Carol Emshwiller’s collection of short stories,

Joy in Our Cause. It is a terrifying, inexplicable, totally authentic world in
which even the commas are eloquent. People either drop from the sky,
are brought in forcibly from the woods, walk in from the desert or otherwise
appear inexplicably out of place (What am I doing here?) or “I” is squashed
under desks, into kitchen corners, or into the eaves of attics (What am I
doing here?) The publisher has packaged the book as feminist, but it isn’t;
it’s only absolutely faithful to the center, “little bits of fun or little bits of
reality” as the author says (“Stories! I don’t believe in them any more than
I believe in pictures on the walls”), sometimes excruciatingly funny,
sometimes just excruciating, the unsupportable taken cheerily for granted,
Hell loyally lived in (“As a mother I have served longer than I expected”),
Heaven profoundly melancholy with intimations of death (as in “The
Childhood of the Human Hero,” a painfully loving portrait of a son).5 There
5 Heaven and Hell exist simultaneously in the same activities, of course.

REVIEWS 113
are sentences that follow the wrinkles of thought in one, secure, impec-
cable line, gallows humor so fresh and innocent that you swallow it
sentimentally before you realize what it is, trivia that can kill – remember
the fencer who didn’t know he’d been cut in half until he tried to walk?
– in short, feathers made of neutronium because there are no big subjects
or little subjects, only life.
A sample beginning (from “I Love You”):
The person you care about the most has just told you you’re no good.
It rings true, but there’s an element of surprise in it.
He has wonderful hands and always gives free advice even if he
is, basically, a nonverbal person.
(These tears are just from yawning.)
Or (in a story indescribably mixed up with Johann Sebastian Bach):
BACH’S SEX LIFE

Orthodox Lutheran.
(This is followed by a list of his twenty children, only nine of whom lived
to adulthood, one of them feeble-minded and the words, both funny and
horrible): “Is this any way to write a Saint Matthew passion!” Or:
I have one more thing to tell them before the trap door is opened or
the sergeant of the firing squad says, “Fire.” In fact, I’m sure of it.
“Wait,” I’ll say.
The last story in the book should not be “Maybe Another Long March
Across China 80,000 Strong,” a very funny story about the women’s
movement (she’s game but has her doubts; the baby girl she carries turns
out to be a boy; her best friends are two transvestites in miniskirts; and
after clonking one man on the head with a rubber dildo she jumps into
the arms of another whom – she brags – is “noted for his leadership
qualities”). It should be “Peninsula” (John Donne?) in which “I,” driven
into the attic by obscene telephone calls, imagines beautiful acrobats on
the telephone wires (“the boys wear tights and colored vests and the girls
have short skirts and flowery hats”) who go South for “Carnival” like
migratory birds. The story ends as “I” (who used to be ornamental but is
now alone) steps out – to freedom or death? – on the wire:
“Oh, those untold stories! … If mine could only ring in your ears like
that!”
And they do. They do.

As Baird Searles once said, the golden age of s.f. is twelve, and Stellar 1’s
efforts to pursue the bubble Entertainment ev’n in the plethora’s mouth
(the introduction is full of vague, sinister assertions about “second-rate
academics” who are taking the fun out of s.f. and grumblements about
significance and other dangers, as if science fiction hadn’t been born
didactic) only lead to a host of newly made antiques, a good Lafferty (“Mr.
Hamadryad”), a pleasant Clement (“The Logical Life”) and Robert
Silverberg’s “Schwartz Between the Galaxies,” which story is worth the
rest of the book put together. I will delicately omit the other participants
except for Milt Rothman’s “Fusion,” a 30-page essay on hydrogen fusion
interrupted by names who drink coffee – this is the editor’s mistake;
Rothman is a fusion technologist himself and only wants to burble.
Actually, Stellar 1 may not be the editor’s fault alone; a well-meaning steam
dynamo named Roger Elwood has been diluting the anthology market to
death lately, innocently unaware that an increase in titles published may
not mean reaching a new audience, but only overloading the existing one,
and that good fiction can’t be cranked out like haggis; there aren’t enough
good stories written in one year to fill fifty extra anthologies. Let us tiptoe
past Stellar 1 and wish Stellar 2 a wider selection to choose from.
Cliffs Notes: Science Fiction, An Introduction. L. David Allen (Cliffs Notes Inc.,
Lincoln, Nebraska, $1.95). Political Science Fiction: An Introductory Reader. Eds.
Martin Harry Greenberg, Patricia S. Warrick (Prentice-Hall, Inc., $5.95, cloth
$9.95). As Tomorrow Becomes Today. Ed. Charles Wm. Sullivan, III (Prentice-
Hall, Inc., $4.95, cloth $7.95). Speculations: An Introduction to Literature Through
Fantasy and Science Fiction. Ed. Thomas E. Sanders (Glencoe Press, Beverly
Hills, California, $6.95). Modern Science Fiction. Ed. Norman Spinrad (Anchor
Press, New York, $3.50). Science Fiction: The Classroom in Orbit. Beverly Friend
(Educational Impact, Inc., Glassboro, N.J., 1974, $3.75; $3.00 for 20 or
more). The English Assassin. Michael Moorcock (Harper & Row, $6.95)
REVIEWS 115
It’s important to kill mosquitoes, especially malaria-carrying ones. Cliffs

Notes may be refreshing to masochists in search of a new intellectual thrill,
but every teacher of Frosh Comp will find this volume wearisomely
familiar; it is the ultimate bad paper that drives us all stark, staring bonkers:
the compulsive (usually polysyllabic) hedging, the endless plot summaries
(redundant if you’ve read the book, baffling if you haven’t), the blank
ignorance of anything more than two years old (the “tremendous effect”
of Dune on the young is mentioned as being without parallel; sic transit
gloria Stranger), the cumulatively unsettling inaccuracies, the eerie
sloppiness (based on an intense, unspoken belief that words don’t really
mean anything), and worst of all – because ignorant, desperate, or hurried
students are particularly vulnerable – the assumption that fiction is put
together assembly-line fashion, out of detachable pieces (except for titles,
all italics in the following quotes are mine):
[A] rite of passage … the sociology of a closed society … the politics

of power … are brought together smoothly and successfully. (p. 93)
There are six factors which compose a literary work … which can be
separated rather easily for analysis: character, story, plot, narrative
point of view, setting, and language. (p. 133) (“language” is given
short shrift here and elsewhere, as you may infer from the misuse
of “compose”)
[Left Hand of Darkness provides] the first “contact” [sic] theme handled
differently and well … an excellent adventure … the world and its
people. Accomplishing any one of these well would deserve praise; to
do three of them well should insure the author of a permanent place
… (pp. 101–02)
A good example of hedging:
[Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea] seems to have introduced many
readers to a new kind of world, one which most of them would have
had little opportunity to have known very much about at all. (p. 15)
Here is Conjure Wife gutted (witchcraft only might be real and women
only “tend” to be witches), Canticle for Leibowitz without its Roman Catholic
theology, Left Hand of Darkness bereft both of love-affair and leibestod, The
Time Machine without either Marxism or the second law of entropy (!), and
plot summaries of Dune, The Demolished Man, and Ringworld which would
make the authors’ heads spin. Most unnerving is the cumulative
inaccuracy; in Wells’ book the Time Traveller resembles the Morlocks more
than he does the Eloi, Stephen Byerly (I, Robot) might really be human
(which destroys the story’s point about ethics), Jan (in Childhood’s End) “it
is interesting to note” bases the calculations for his trip “on Einstein’s
relativity theory” (heck, I thought he used Newton’s Fluxions), “wisely”
Panshin does not describe faster-than-light travel in Rite of Passage because
it “might be impossible to do convincingly,” Mia “is initiated sexually by
Jimmy” (he’s a virgin too), kemmer (in Left Hand) has “little legal status” (it
has none), Gethenians are “humanoid” (they’re human), the Ekumen is
“somewhat of a failure” and yet “extremely successful” (no, I’m not making
this up), the engineering of Ringworld is theoretically sound (never mind
that plane-of-rotation thing, Larry), and the sex of the “hero” in Babel-17
is a “twist” (Delany, known for his flashy commercial novelties). This is
not merely a useless book; it is obscene, exploitative, and part of the obscure
reasons why Americans cannot read. No student, exposed to this ghast-
liness, would ever want to; and she or he would be right.
Almost (but not quite) as ravaged is Political Science Fiction, a big, bland,
Platonic Idea of a high-school textbook, which delivers such gems of
profundity as “In the United States, political leadership at the national level
is determined by voting” (p. 74) and such droning non-questions as “Who
is to be the political and literal master – man or his technology?” (p. 5).
Students faced with this kind of numbing gorp will instantly flee into
pornography, violence, megalomaniac power-tripping, and (just possibly)
science fiction, i.e. anything septic. The use of the masculine-preferred1 is
more offensive here than elsewhere (all the teaching anthologies commit
it) simply because there is so little else in the book; to write an “inoffensive”
high-school civics text (which is what the editors seem to want to attempt)
means omitting race, sex, economics, drugs, culture, perception, biology,
i.e. the entire human context of political behavior. One author is a male
man and the other a female man but neither gets much beyond Matthew
Arnold; here is Political S.F. at its most fiery and intransigent (italics mine):
The anger and frustration felt by many American blacks, for example,
may derive in part from the feeling that statements about equality and
1 Not only do the authors talk endlessly about “Man” and “men”; they also
complain about the abstraction of other textbooks! The vast, monolithic figure
of Man the Empire Builder, Man the Toolmaker, and Man the Problem-Solver
is a standing invitation to falsification and enlarging rhetoric, and an irresistible
temptation to invent Man the Blatherer, Man the Dandruff-Shedder, and Man
the Lettuce-Slicer. Woody Allen, thou shouldst be with us at this hour.
REVIEWS 117
justice contained in documents like the Declaration of Independence

and the Bill of Rights do not have meaning for them. (p. 10)
The stories – mostly powerfully dull – peak in the mid-’50s and mid-
’60s, median date 1959. The few good ones can be found elsewhere;
“Remember the Alamo” by R. R. Fehrenbach and Herbert Gold’s “The Day
They Got Boston” are the only interesting rarities.
Neither Prentice-Hall book shows any definite personality, although As

Tomorrow Becomes Today has a better selection of stories (possibly due to the
aid of the four s.f. authors whom the editor thanks on p. xv). The intro-
ductions rehearse the obvious very lumpily (“One danger for the man who
travels into the near past is that he may get caught in a time loop” p. 7),
tub-thump for s.f. as the handmaid of futurology, which was one thing in
the 1930s (a voice crying in the wilderness will use all the arguments it
can get, even bad ones) and is quite another in 1974, especially when the
crier-in-the-wilderness gets the plot of The Einstein Intersection as stagger-
ingly wrong as this one does (pp. 93–94). A good teacher could avoid (or
argue with) the intermatter and concentrate on the stories (Sullivan, like
Allen, thinks fiction is made of detachable parts like a watch – “a work of
art was broken down into its various components, examined, and then
reassembled” p. 3); so the final criticism of the book could be simply its
contents page. One of the (doubtful) pleasures of such a volume is discov-
ering how good writers like Heinlein and Clarke can be when they’re good
(as they are here). Best in the book: Heinlein’s “All You Zombies” and “And
He Built a Crooked House,” Bester’s “The Man Who Murdered
Mohammad,” Lafferty’s “Primary Education of the Camiroi” and “Thus We
Frustrate Charlemagne,” Ellison’s “A Boy and His Dog”2 and “Repent,
Harlequin,” Asimov’s “Runaround,” Knight’s sinister “Masks” with its
smashing last five words, Sheckley’s “Specialist,” Clarke’s “Sentinel,”
Cordwainer Smith’s “Game of Rat and Dragon” (I’m reminded of Christina
Rossetti, who preferred moles and wombats to men), Worthington’s
“Plenitude,” Pohl’s “Wizard of Pung’s Corners,” and Le Guin’s “Nine Lives.”
Less well known but very good is Burt Filer’s “Back-tracked” and a brief
stunneroo by Tuli Kupferberg called “Personal.”
Speculations has less intermatter, more real personality (sometimes offen-

sively snobbish as in a belligerently silly attack on lit. crit. written by some
anti-Asimov who must inhabit the ghostly interstices of the Good Doctor’s
2 Oddly affectionate-cum-horrific as it is: its last line is literally true.

cranium like the Dr. Edward anti-Teller of the New Yorker poem), and a
much more mixed bag of science fiction, including fine nineteenth-century
material and poetry, plus an essay on overpopulation by Arthur Koestler
(“Age of Climax”). The “voice” of the anthology, overall, is sentimentally
liberal and artistically conservative (the editor believes “the human
condition” – there’s only one – to be “unchanged and unchanging” on p.
45, cheerily disregarding Asimov’s wrath at the back of the book on just
this point) and somewhat lacking in the middle types of fiction – you have
Lafferty and Lovecraft on one side, Sheckley and Pohl on the other. Most
of the fiction filling this gap in tone is older material like Kipling’s “Easy
As A.B.C.” or Benet’s “Nightmare Number Three.” The editor is a curious,
goshwowing fellow who thinks that speculative fiction is about controlling
inanimate matter because you can’t control yourself (and that’s jimdandy
– p. 11), that fantasy (which is identical with science fiction) is good because
it creates “metaphorical reality wherein evil is truly evil without the
necessity of rational study of extenuating circumstances” (p. 5), i.e. he is
ahistorical, apolitical, and an academickal tragedy-addict. He is also a
burbling neofan. Consider (italics mine):
“Have superior beings visited Earth, programmed primitive Earth-

lings to become intelligent beings or destroy themselves …? Such
questions are as unanswerable as they are undismissable.” (p. 8)
He is also vividly human, in a Preface worth the rest of the intermatter put
together: a youngster in Picher, Oklahoma, lusting after Dale Arden (“a
dress like no one in my town would ever wear”), intensely admiring Flash
Gordon, “that clean, blond-haired god” with his “yellow ringlets,” and
finally throwing up (at the horrible rats in the story) while being driven
home by … his Cherokee father (pp. xvi–xvii).
The poems include goodies by Ammons, Auden, Ginsberg, Poulin,
Swenson, William Carlos Williams, and a gorgeous but obscure writer
called Walt Whitman (“When I Heard the Learned Astronomer” is good).
There is a blather of bad, fancy poems about the Apollo landing. Best of
the fiction: Benet’s “By the Waters of Babylon” and “Repent, Harlequin,”
Graham Greene’s “Discovery in the Woods,” Nathaniel Hawthorne’s
“Earth’s Holocaust” (yum), Lafferty’s “Continued on the Next Rock,”
Leiber’s “A Pail of Air,” Lovecraft’s “The Outsider,” Katherine MacLean’s
“Pictures Don’t Lie,” Melville’s astonishing “The Tartarus of Maids” (about
which the editor is awfully obtuse, but maybe he’s just being sneaky),
Niven’s “Neutron Star”, Poe’s “Mellonta Tauta” (nice to see it around),
Saki’s “Sredni Vashtar,” Silverberg’s “Sundance,” and two curiosa: a very
chopped-up condensation of Mary Shelley’s The Last Man (somebody ought
REVIEWS 119
to try publishing it all the way through, despite the apparent hazards) and
H. G. Wells’s Chronic Argonauts, the novella which became The Time Machine.
Subtle, sophisticated, intelligent, accurate (and inexpensive), Modern

Science Fiction is the gem of the bunch. He burbleth not; neither doth he
drone. He knows the subject. He even talks about the economics of s.f. and
the effects of packaging (though he doesn’t mention that paperback distrib-
utors and retail outlets don’t share the publisher’s financial risk). In plain
English he says fine, illuminating things: “People weren’t so sure that they
knew what was real and what was not until the eighteenth century” (p.
4) or science fiction is “living metaphor” (p. 10 – exactly what Samuel
Delany says about s.f.’s effect on language). The book’s intermatter is too
compressed, if anything; on p. 402 Judith Merril appears unidentified and
shorn of her first name; likewise, much more that the editor says is worth
further explanation and illustration. The selections (chronologically
arranged, beautifully illustrating the history of the field) are excellent, and
– unlike neofan professors – Spinrad is not taken in by naive power-
tripping; in fact he loathes it (as one would expect from the author of The
Iron Dream).3 I would quibble with some of his choices (e.g. Farmer’s “Don’t
Wash the Carats,” far from being the only dangerous story in Dangerous
Visions, is plain silly – Spinrad’s interest in the human sensorium is leading
him astray here) but the best praise is simply to list the contents: Campbell’s
“Twilight,” Van Vogt’s “Enchanted Village,” Del Rey’s “Helen O’Loy,”
Asimov’s “Nightfall,” Clarke’s “The Star,” Sturgeon’s “Affair with a Green
Monkey,” Knight’s “Stranger Station,” “Godwin’s “The Cold Equations”
(rather Eichmannesque, this one), Kornbluth’s “The Marching Morons,”
Bester’s “5,271,009” (jeez parbloo cheers!), Ballard’s “The Voices of Time,”
Moorcock’s “Pleasure Garden of Felipe Sagittarius,” Spinrad’s “No
Direction Home” (the most genuine and sophisticated s.f. drug story I’ve
ever read, miles from the usual Unspeakable Temptation or It Isn’t Real –
it’s about epistemology), Disch’s “Descending” (really a fantasy), Zelazny’s
“For a Breath I Tarry,” the aforesaid story by Farmer, Dick’s “Faith of Our
Fathers,” Delany’s “Aye, and Gomorrah …,” Ellison’s “At the Mouse
3 A man (not woman) who writes of “pseudo-Wagnerian superpowered hugger-

mugger” (p. 13), “murky, adolescent longings for power, strength, peer-group
solidarity, and mystic transcendence” (p. 110), and “a machismo of production”
(p. 191) may find himself in the same position as Damon Knight and Theodore
Sturgeon, who challenged a lot of he-man nonsense but never really overturned
it (fictionally that is) because they were working with only one-half of the social
equation. Worried – and sincere – discussions in the Men’s House which do not
also consider what is happening in the Women’s Lodge (are those smoke signals?
machine guns? what are they really thinking?) are self-defeating. This is not a
criticism of the book.
Circus,” Silverberg’s “In Entropy’s Jaws,” and Le Guin’s “Nine Lives.” There
is a bibliography of additional works (including novels). A fine book for
both students and teachers, as well as plain old readers.
A jazzy, goshwow, speed-of-light, quirky “mini-course” packed with infor-

mation, with a natural grouping of themes and subjects, considerable
history, and a wealth of games and questions (called “probes”) which ought
to keep everyone higher than a kite for months (they’re sometimes booby-
trapped; one is “Try to say ISHFE” p. 83), Classroom in Orbit is a fine resource
book – not an anthology but an old trunk which you open in the attic and
find full of treasures: quotations, questions, hints, games, flat statements
(most of them accurate), bibliographies, horrors, provocations,
poignancies, everything fast and pointed and designed for take-off. It is
more complex and subtle than it seems (although Friend fumbles some
things, e.g. the auteur theory of film, p. 67) and by approaching the subject
the way a fan or writer would, manages to be suitable for any level from
(possibly) junior high on up. The book is infinitely sophisticatable. What
it needs is a teacher or class that can fill in – this is designed to get classes
started. The art is scribbly-funny (although the illustration for Slaughter-
house Five utterly spoils one of the saddest parts of the novel) and if Heinlein
says don’t rewrite, don’t believe him. (Man the Black Monolith appears
again,4 despite a chapter on women in s.f., but who’s perfect? Anyhow the
book invites quarreling.) There is a Supplement which the author wishes
to have bound with her text; it is full of lists of anthologies, textbooks,
thematic works, critical articles, articles on teaching, films available for
classroom use, Hugo winners, &c. and can be ordered separately and
inexpensively from the same publisher. The book itself includes material
on s.f. films, TV, Star Trek, and fandom.
The English Assassin got squeezed out of my last review by problems of space,
not quality. It is Michael Moorcock’s third Jerry Cornelius novel, and – less
vividly raw than the first, The Final Programme (I haven’t read A Cure for
Cancer) – it is sadder, stranger, more crafted, sometimes more beautiful,
and far more complex. It is also much more concretely English in its refer-
ences than the first book and hence somewhat baffling to an American: a
kind of subjective world in which everything opens on to Ladbroke Grove
(which I take to be something like the Greenwich Village of the ’20s), in
which disasters happen over and over again and yet people come back after
death (to die again), with everything always on the verge of ending,
4 Yes, I know there’s someone out there turning purple with rage at this point.
But I’ll leave the subject alone when it leaves me alone.
REVIEWS 121
beautiful, odd, funny-melancholy, flatly horrible, take your pick (tanks at

Dove Cottage). The book is full of decay, death, war, what Moorcock calls
“the poverty trance,” the mixing of alternate histories, alternate
technologies – well, it calls itself “A Romance of Entropy” and it is a romance
– people appear, die, reappear – and die – vitality passes from one character
to another (Jerry has to steal his brother’s life-force in order to become
human at the very end; sister Cathy comments “What a wonderful
surprise!” and then “It’s time Frank had a turn”); they sail out to sea
(“goodbye, England”) with Woman-Mountain-Mum-Mrs. Cornelius
asleep at the seaside and about to be shelled by a destroyer (she may not
be indestructible, after all); and one recalls with mixed feelings Bishop
Beezley’s munching a young, chocolate-covered ex-nun (he loves candy
bars). There are also newspaper clippings about violence and death, often
children’s – Moorcock doesn’t like death, or violence. The author’s first
Jerry Cornelius book was printed by Avon in paperback; I’m glad he’s
finally gotten a good publisher and hope S & S readers of Moorcock’s other
(and vastly inferior) books will all run out and buy The English Assassin
under the mistaken belief it’s all about Prince Elric of Whatchamacallit.
They will have exchanged fake-exoticism for real strangeness and (despite
the difficulty of pegging English locales and Erté tea gowns) may find they
like it. I do. Goodbye, England, Goodbye. Goodbye (Good luck.)
NOTE: Two new fanzines have appeared recently: a feminist one, The Witch
and the Chameleon, Amanda Bankier, 2 Paisley Avenue South, Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada ($3.25/yr and Red Planet Earth, Craig Strete, R.R. #1, Box
208, Celina, Ohio 45822 ($.50 each), “an inter-tribal effort to help Indian
writers.” There are aliens among us. (Us?)
REPENTANT – SILVERBERG NOTE:

In my January 1975 review I committed the kind of blooper about Born
With the Dead that has made me wish I were dead. I didn’t say what I meant.
I called the book’s extremely talented writer “a sossidge-factory trying to
become an artist,” assuming that everybody knew Mr. Silverberg’s factory
days ended fifteen years ago and that by “artist” I meant work so faultless
and fully realized that one would not wish a word of it changed. Then I
went and did it again, reviewing Stellar 1. I wish to apologize publicly for
my ghastly fumble. Silverberg is a very-ex-sossidge-factory still in the process
of developing as an artist; “Schwartz Between the Galaxies” and “Notes for
the Pre-Dynastic Epoch” are true quantum-jumps in this process; to my
mind they are absolutely satisfying works, without reservations, the kind
of fully fused writing that’s rare in any writer’s career. And that is what I
meant.
The Clewiston Test. Kate Wilhelm (Farrar Straus Giroux, $8.95). Millennium.
Ben Bova (Random House, $7.95). Star Mother. Sydney J. Van Scyoc
(Berkley Putnam, $6.95). Comet. Jane White (Harper, $7.95). Cloned Lives.
Pamela Sargent (Fawcett Gold Medal, $1.50). Star Trek: The New Voyages.
Eds. Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath (Bantam, $1.75)
In the course of her writing career Kate Wilhelm has progressed from being
a “story teller” (her own phrase at a writer’s conference once attended) to
a “manager of words” – T. S. Eliot’s phrase – through sheer intelligence
and dogged hard work. Verbal lyricism remains either outside her reper-
toire or not to her taste; what she has done in The Clewiston Test as part of
her continuing progress is to develop her “telling” into dramatic
crosslighting. There are no less than sixty-four changes of point-of-view
in the book (I may have missed some) and the crucial questions on which
the book turns are questions organic to the crosslighting method: who is
sane, who is honest, and whose perceptions are to be trusted. Test is a bare
book, puzzling perhaps at first reading (it puzzled me) because of the
solidity, simplicity and unusualness of the method, but eventually clear
and often very powerful.
There is an eerie idea current in much popular criticism that a critic ought
to judge only the “technique” of a novel and not its “content;” yet beyond
the point of minimal competence technique is content. To judge science
fiction by “technique” only is like judging buildings only by whether they
remain standing or not; in these terms, I. M. Pei’s NCAR building at Boulder
and McDonald’s golden arches are equally valuable. Literature is not only
beautiful, like music and architecture; it is also referential, which means
that literary criticism inevitably becomes referential also, and hence moral.
As George Bernard Shaw once said of plays, mechanical rabbits are fun
because they are ingenious, cheap, or resemble real rabbits; but real rabbits
appeal to entirely different concerns and provoke entirely different questions.
You don’t, for example, praise a live rabbit for ingeniously looking like a
live rabbit; you expect it to; after all, it is a live rabbit. In Shaw’s metaphor
the artificially constructed commercial work is the wind-up toy, the organic
work of art the live animal. Science fiction, like all literature, is overrun by
artificial rabbits; Test is one of our very few live rabbits (Kate Wilhelm has
in the past written mechanical – though sometimes deeply felt – wind-up
rabbits) so criticism from now on will be, among other things, moral.
REVIEWS 123
I have two objections to the book, one minor and technical, one major
and non-technical. The technical objection is to the point-of-view changes,
which proliferate a little too much, even once (for a single sentence) into
the mind of a passing waitress. Wilhelm’s dramatic crosslighting demands
a lot of athleticism in the reader, and these jumping points of view add to
the demands; there are also too many spear-carriers unnecessarily
identified by name, although these painstaking details, among others, do
make Prather Pharmaceuticals extraordinarily solid. Scenes also often start
with the objective camera-eye and then slide into a particular mind; and
sometimes shifts occur within paragraphs.
My major objection inevitably takes us outside the book. At first what
bothered me was the constriction of the characters’ lives; although they
are scientists and one of them is a genius, there is no intellectual playfulness
here, no culture, no politics, no international affairs, no sports, and hardly
any gossip. (This odd deprivation has one effect at least that is fine: The
heroine’s few escapes into fantasy stand out brilliantly.) Perhaps Wilhelm
means to demonstrate the provinciality and deprivation of her scientists’
lives; yet narrow-minded people don’t really banish all the above from
their conversation; they have their own versions of them. The book seems
to oversimplify reality for dramatic effect. In another area this is just what
the book does, thus turning a qualified social situation into a simpler kind
of tragedy and a simpler kind of triumph than it might be. I mean the
heroine’s isolation from other women.
Women in the sciences are certainly more isolated from other women
than their humanist cousins, but Test does not offer this (or any other)
explanation for Anne Clewiston’s being alone; not only that, the author
seems to have deliberately loaded the dice so that her heroine’s isolation
will be total. A book about a strong, independent, gifted woman who
challenges the establishment and her own husband is clearly a feminist
book. Yet Wilhelm, writing page after page about her own version of one-
half of the feminist equation – that much misunderstood phrase, “The
personal is political” – completely neglects the other half, i.e. solidarity
between women. It is no more possible to be a feminist single-handed (or
make what is essentially a feminist protest) than it’s possible to have a one-
woman trade union. Our cultural tradition be-mystifies the question of
support and solidarity for everybody but especially so for women; not only
can no woman (or man) today succeed in any social protest (including
feminism) without support from others, nobody ever could. The official
portraits of women artists, for example, as operating in a supportive setting
of husbands and male colleagues, tend to censor the importance of female
colleagues and female friends, such unlikely-appearing pairs as Elizabeth
Barrett Browning and George Sand, for example, or the very isolated – but
not that isolated – Emily Dickinson. It was with this quite verifiable historical
fact in mind that I read about Anne Clewiston, who is neither a feminist,
misinformed about feminism, nor even afraid of it; she seems to live in a
world in which it simply does not exist. Now no woman or man in this
country can have escaped hearing something, however sketchy, about the
women’s movement in the last few years, and any white, middle-class
woman (I would be presumptuous if I spoke outside my own experience,
but this much I know) who is not too far from a big city or a large university
can find some kind of support from other women if she chooses to look
for it. In Test Anne Clewiston hasn’t made any such choice, nor do we see
for what reasons she might have made it or the information or misinfor-
mation she had to base a choice on. In real life it takes time to find the
“right” group and feminists are always complaining that the groups they
do find are “wrong” – too conservative, too radical, too young, too old, too
lesbian, too non-lesbian, too political, too subjective – but Wilhelm’s
heroine hasn’t had this experience, either. If anything, Test proposes that
an independent woman can expect support least from other women; when
it comes to the crunch there are three good men who stand up for Anne
(her boss, her uncle, and her lawyer) but the women Anne might possibly
turn to are as repellent a pair as you will find: a mother so totally destructive
that she has openly parted company with reality, and a feminist colleague
(ditto) who is an unstable, treacherous lesbian and whose thwarted passion
for the heroine heads directly to the heroine’s being presumed mad. The
one good woman in the book is Anne’s nurse-companion, but the social
distance between them is so great (and so unbreached by either) that only
on p. 232 does the loyal Ronnie finally ask her employer if anything’s
wrong. This is not to say that Wilhelm is obliged to show her heroine being
supported by other women, but the sheer possibility doesn’t seem to enter
the book’s social calculus at all.
In a novel that depends heavily on social analysis, conventional or
ambiguous material is fatal. There is some of this in Test. The novel indicates
at one point that Deena, the lesbian, is not typical of feminists but gets the
dynamics of her c.r. group wrong; any leader who was “sharp” with a
member would face at the very least the flat rebellion of the other members,
probably enriched by three hours’ kvetching about elitism. Moreover it’s
not clear whether Deena is a lesbian because she’s crazy or crazy because
she’s a lesbian. The humane view, of course, would be that it’s the repression
of her lesbianism that’s driven her crazy, just as the humane view of the
heroine’s mother – explicitly put forward by good Uncle Harry – is that it’s
the suppression of her intelligence that’s made her bitchy. Since we never
see the dynamics either of Deena’s madness or the mother’s frustration
(how? why? who did it to them? in what ways?) we are left with unpleasant
REVIEWS 125
people who can be interpreted in the conventional way, i.e. it’s their own
fault. I think Anne’s alcoholic boss fails in the same way; the book tells us
his life was ruined by being kicked upstairs into an uncongenial job, but
what we see dramatically is a spineless, whining hypochondriac. One can
only conclude that his alcoholism, his hypochondria, and his acceptance of
the uncongenial job are all caused by his weak character.
It is, I think, in the details of the business at Prather, and especially in
Anne’s relation to her husband, that the novel is most solid, though even
here the reasons why the Symons marriage breaks up shift bewilderingly.
Wilhelm seems to be saying in one place that sexual dissatisfaction causes
feminism, in another that Anne’s confinement at home after her accident
gives her a taste of the life most wives lead all the time, and still elsewhere
that she blames her husband for the car accident. After the rape the question
is no longer up for grabs, of course, and I especially liked Anne’s “sly” look
at her boss (she asks him if a man can rape his own wife and Goodguy answers
no) and the theatrical, self-aggrandizing nature of her husband’s grief, a
masculine phenomenon insisted upon by such diverse works as Samuel
Delany’s Triton and “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman.” Much in the novel
is sheer tour-de-force, especially the domestic detail of Anne’s surroundings.
Emphasizing the contradictions in the book only points up that contradic-
tions are inevitable when you deal with real, difficult subject-matter. Ms.
Wilhelm is blasting out living space in the middle of solid rock, something
not one book in ten thousand has the nerve to do. Confusion is inevitable;
what’s exhilarating is that the process is nonetheless alive and continuing.
Ben Bova’s Millennium is an artificial rabbit. My copy tried to eat real grass
in the back yard and died. It’s a slick, optimistic replay of 1776 in which a
predictably humane-and-decent society on the moon revolts against a
predictable dystopia on earth. The moon society is half American and half
Russian, which gives the author a chance for a lot of International Under-
standing (there are, luckily, no Maoist Chinese practicing self-criticism in
the corridors) with a lot of sloppiness in the beginning, great wedges of
exposition, and some Sears Roebuck eroticism that annoyed me until I
realized the author was simply trying to trot out his characters as fast as
possible (this is done by listing the features that make the women sexy and
grading the men on degrees of being “in condition”). The story that unrolls
after this, however, is slick enough to be fun, and even moving if you can
forget that its assumptions are more-than-twice-told tales. I’m tempted to
call the novel “Executive to the Stars” but that only pegs the school to
which it belongs, and however stodgy the school (and the ideas thereof)
the book is an O.K., intelligent workout for an idle hour or for people who
are terrified of live books.
In Star Mother Sydney Van Scyoc has invented the first hybrid gothic-cum-
science fiction, a combination quite as horrid as it sounds. The heroine, a
Peace Corps type, is your routine sheltered, spunky and incompetent miss;
there is a dark, arrogant, brusque, mysterious hero who lives in a castle,
hauls the heroine about, and refuses to answer her questions; heck, there’s
even a loyal housekeeper.1 The hero and heroine do not get married and
there is no glamorous and wicked other woman for the heroine to be
jealous of, but there is your usual heroine’s alter ego, who is carefully
developed through chapter after chapter only to get killed as a stand-in for
the heroine (who blunders badly the only time she actually does something
on her own). In fact there are two alter egos, one of which kills the other
– a worn-out drudge from a Fundamentalist community that kills its
mutants (brilliantly novel, eh?) and a rebellious girl from a savage tribe
who has a bad case of pelt-envy (males are very hairy on this world) and
wants to be a man. By contrast Jahna, the heroine, is presented as a free,
independent, but not aggressive or hostile, representative of liberated
womanhood, who is going to raise the status of the native savage women
because she is beautiful (!), intelligent (an assumption not borne out by
her actions), and will provide a figurehead around which they can rally.
The book’s idea of how to make men value you is to be very pretty and
have lots of babies (though not, on this world, in the usual way), an idea
you’d think the last eight thousand years of human history would have
thrown a teeny bit into doubt, but Star Mother is a rabbit so absurdly artificial
(purple and with pom-poms) that only those who try to eat it or breed it
will be disappointed. It’s a lively, silly, colorful, wholly derivative book,
with some promising biological inventions the author never really
develops. I don’t actually mind the book itself, but I do have unsettling
visions of inspired adolescents among the readership typing out mss like
“Governess to the Stars” and “Interstellar Nurse.” Star-executives have to
know a considerable amount about the real world, even if such knowledge
doesn’t include anything about people. Star-governesses need to know
(and do) nothing.
A wind-up rabbit that doesn’t even go is Jane White’s Comet, a dreadfully

pretentious re-play of the birth of Christ and early Christianity in which
everybody speaks Basic Peasant (“A baby. There has never been a baby
here. Not even in the village, not now. It is forbidden”) and they are all so
simple and elemental that they’ve forgotten the word for fucking, a propo-
sition I absolutely refuse to believe. Comet is a post-holocaust world, the
1 Joanna Russ, “Someone’s Trying To Kill Me and I Think It’s My Husband: The
Modern Gothic,” Journal of Popular Culture, Spring 1973, q.v.
REVIEWS 127
holocaust in this case having been the dearth of raw materials needed for
a machine civilization. Thus the populace lives in squalor and the rulers
run tanks and planes (on what, for Heaven’s sake?) and wear plastic clothes,
apparently having located their hideout over a petroleum mine. The book
has a terminal case of Archibald MacLeish-itis, i.e. the idea that you can
arbitrarily substitute any patch of history for any other because the Eternal
Verities make them identical. One would expect this book to come from
Doubleday in one of its barrel-scraping moments, but even books like Pig
World and Complex Man hop erratically and luridly about the room; Comet
(from Harper and Row, of all people!) just lies there with its gears grinding.
It is a portentously dull, thoroughly bad book.
To drop the rabbit metaphor, Pamela Sargent’s Cloned Lives is an interesting

and promising first novel, sketchily and badly put together from episodes
that first appeared elsewhere. The first 120 pages are jumpily expository
and dull, with no indication of how the violent millennial riots of the
beginning ever lead to the rational, affluent, decent world of the middle
and end. Once we get into the adult lives of the six clones, however, the
author reveals a talent for tracing the psychology and human relations of
her characters, projecting a kind of ideal decency that is pleasant and
refreshing. Much in the book is clumsy (like the technology, which seems
an afterthought) but there is a kind of innocence which carries much before
it. The clones, I am glad to say, turn out to be different people, realistically
bothered by their notoriety and the peculiarity of their birth; despite the
excitingly revolutionary and inflammatory claims made by the various
epigraphs, the book shows not big changes but little ones; its world is quiet,
low-keyed, and not flamboyant, but often authentically different.
The Kindly Editor sent me Star Trek: The New Voyages with the comment
that Fantasy and Science Fiction has an obligation to cover “one of these”
books. But New Voyages isn’t one of these books; it’s neither about the
program (like The Making of Star Trek) or a novelization by a professional
writer of produced or unproduced scripts. Voyages is a collection of fan
fiction, i.e. a ten-year-old’s toy rabbit made very carefully with love and
effort but a lot of the little wheels and things got left on the kitchen table
and when you try to make it stand up it collapses. Most of the authors are
ignorant of such fictional niceties as point of view, to mention only one
mess-up, and the strain of reading stories that can’t or won’t distinguish
between the television medium and written prose narrative finally did me
in. I survived part-way into each story (considering this better than not
reading any of them) and if you think this impairs my credentials as a critic,
remember the story of the playwright who fell asleep during a neophyte’s
play, and afterwards, to the young person’s pained protest, replied, “Young
man, sleep is an opinion.” What seems to be wrong with the stories (besides
their technical faults, which I would deal with in a writing class – where
some of the authors might get A’s, by the way – but not here) is that they
mechanically re-create the stalest trivia of the show – its names, its star
dates, its log, its mannerisms – without in the least trying to replicate the
essence of its appeal. The best story I’ve ever seen about Star Trek (which
carefully avoids trying to ritualistically re-create the superficialities) is
James Tiptree’s “Beam Us Home,” which can be found in his Ten Thousand
Light Years From Home (Ace, 95¢). I recommend it to the Little League writers
in New Voyages, as a way of learning how to play with the big folks.2
NOTE: Fan fiction is extremely interesting as a sociological phenomenon,

sociological value being – of course – separate from literary value. Analyses
along many dimensions are needed, e.g. the perennial interest in Spock,
the s.f. themes that crop up, the kinds of alien worlds created, the
imaginary–real interface, and so on. Some comments on the sexism of New
Voyages, especially interesting because the editors and most of the writers
are women, appear in a pamphlet sent to me, which was written and
distributed by Joyce Rosenfield at the Science Fiction Fair held May 22,
1976 for the Children’s Brain Diseases Foundation in California. This is
only one possibility and perhaps the most obvious. New Voyages represents
the taste of its editors, and is not (I would assume) representative of the
range or typicality of fan fiction. Some popular culture scholar might go
through the fanzines in search of all this material. As an old Trek watcher
I would be interested in the results of such a search … as long as somebody
else did the large quantities of reading required.
2 Author’s Note: Years after the publication of this review, I was told that the stories
suffered, not from the authors’ limitations, but from having been altered by
someone during the production process. Unfortunately I don’t know who or
how.
REVIEWS 129
Frontiers, III:3, fall, 1978
The High Cost of Living. Marge Piercy (New York, Harper and Row, 1978,
268pp., $10.00)
I find Marge Piercy’s new book, The High Cost of Living, not quite as good
as her other works, which probably means it’s better. I felt the same way
about Woman on the Edge of Time until I lived with it a little. Books that are
truly alive and individual don’t fit easily into preconceptions about what
“the novel” should be doing. In addition, Piercy tackles subjects in such an
uncompromising, straightforward way that her novels carry an odd air of
obviousness about them; surely (one says, reading) something this clear
can’t be good. Why, everybody knows what this book tells me. But, ah,
look around you! They don’t.
“All the things you don’t know about me would make a new world,”
wrote Ida Mae Tassin from Bedford Hills Penitentiary.1 Not that I know
these things, either, mind you; I’m quoting Elizabeth Janeway quoting
Kathryn Watterson Burckhardt quoting Ida Mae Tassin – thus (third-hand)
do the statements of the poor and powerless enter even that marginal part
of academia devoted to feminist scholarship. The High Cost of Living is a truth
of this sort: the price exacted from those who are both poor and
homosexual. This subject is grim, gritty, and gray, and Piercy makes it
neither elegant, stylistically ingenious, nor luridly false. Thus the most
astonishing thing about Living is not that it was written (if you know Piercy’s
other work, that won’t surprise you) but that Piercy, in some working-
class survival dodge unknown to middle-class academics like myself, got it
published.
The jacket blurb is a study in confusion, from the assertion that the
heroine’s boss is a “spoiled parasitic academic” (in his milder forms he is a
very common type in the circles I travel in) to the zany notion that the
heroine’s isolation is caused by “relentless ideology” (she is poor and
lesbian; if she moved into the lesbian, feminist community, as the book
makes clear, she could stop being lonely), or that her homosexual friend,
Bernard, is converted to heterosexuality (he finds that with the help of a
good deal of fantasy, he can once fuck a particular woman, which is not at
all the same thing), or that the heroine, Leslie, is “a moralist whose high
1 Elizabeth Janeway, Between Myth and Morning, William Morrow & Co., New
York, 1974, p. 259.
standards inevitably blind her to those crucial moments when reality

refuses to dissolve itself into clear categories of right and wrong.” Alas,
there are no such moments in Living, which is concerned rather with the
slow grinding down of those who are deviant in too many ways at once,
class being the main killer here. Piercy is honest about the alertness to self-
defense required of homosexual people, the vulnerability, and the
emotional fatigue of living in a constantly, unpredictably hostile world
(there are queer jokes in here you don’t even notice on a first reading) and
yet what could Leslie do if she were heterosexual? Perhaps what silly,
pretty, charming, seventeen-year-old Honor does, i.e. get screwed. The
characters in this novel, initially so different and unrelated, begin to form
(as one watches) an eerie pyramid of oppression: Honor, naive and
ambitious, trying to be Somebody via the traditional feminine methods
and hence caught by what she ought to know better than; Honor’s mother
(originally seen by Leslie as a villain), herself deprived and rightly ferocious
about her daughter’s future; Bernard and Leslie, thinking it makes sense
to fight over the very limited stock of pretties available to them; Leslie’s
ex-lover, as stupidified and paid for as the most unhappy suburban
housewife; the woman keeping her, one of the rich lesbians Leslie used to
know, with their silk shirts and edged jokes but still closeted, still only
playing at achievement; the faculty wife, Sue, profiting a little from her
position (largely because she herself is rich) but still unhappy and insecure
(her husband’s idea of an open marriage doesn’t really include her freedom,
too). At the top of this small heap is the white professional man, George,
but George is only a little fish whose own fears point straight up the
pyramid, to the moneyed interests in Detroit he dare not offend. None of
these people is weak or pathetic; they are all strong, whether pleasant or
unpleasant; Piercy knows that the measure of a society is how much
passion, courage, and sheer love of living it can crush. This is not a novel
about The Oppressed written from above (Robin Morgan once called that
sort of thing, “Lenin Leading the Schlemiels”), nor does the book stand
outside its characters, thus allowing us to do so. Nor does Piercy claim that
proper ideology is the answer – one of the best things here is the implicit
portrait of the limitations of the lesbian feminist counterculture: its surface
sweetness, its closed-in-ness, the dreadful demands it makes (must make)
on everyone’s time, and the ghetto acceptance that lasts only as long as
one obeys tribal custom. For the main characters in the book, the wrench-
ingly high cost of living is that they do know their situation … and that
understanding doesn’t help. They are tough, informed, determined, even
desperate people, and by all the rules of fiction, they ought to succeed. But
they don’t, and Piercy shows you why, which is much harder than telling
you why. Not are there villains, except off-stage; even George, creep that
REVIEWS 131
he is, exists in response to temptations and privileges that are not at all
uncommon.
It might be objected here that the very act of writing about dead-end
desperation is itself a kind of escape; and yet, if it is, it is surely one
unavailable to most people. The characters in Living, for example, for all
their intelligence, do not possess any special talent for writing novels, nor
do they enjoy intimate chats with God. Neither visionaries nor artists, they
possess no special escape routes and hence don’t escape; they merely draw
together, are tempted by the possibility of real community (which doesn’t
pan out: Piercy is much more pessimistic about sudden conversions of any
kind than the blurb writer is), but cannot overcome the social forces which
act against that community, and so drift apart. Leslie may make it – or
rather, she may find life somewhat easier than before, since the pupils in
her new, all-woman karate class may fall in love with her. But the separatist
solution is, at best, partial, like everything else. It is also (like everything
else) too costly. The last sentence of the book has Leslie heading back to
academia and George.
Marge Piercy is a realist born out of her time, which is one of the reasons
she could write so (technically speaking) nineteenth-century a Utopian
novel as Woman on the Edge of Time. Nor is there anything strange or idiosyn-
cratic about this. One could say the same thing of Lorraine Hansbery’s
Raisin in the Sun, for example. Material finds it own form, and when creative
work first begins to be written, authors tend to take two approaches: the
subjective and lyrical sort of work where the material exists as the unnamed
and possibly unnameable thematic center of the work, and then (once the
material can be named, i.e. pinned down) as those pioneering forms which
long ago dealt with similar matters. If the brothers Goncourt had written
about class and sexism from the viewpoint of an upwardly mobile, poor
lesbian, Marge Piercy would be doing something else today. But they didn’t
and so she must. Indeed, so pronounced is this nineteenth-century ghost
hovering behind Piercy’s book that the jacket blurb (for once fairly
accurate) calls the novel “Victorian.” I was taken in by the apparent
anachronism of Living to the point that I wanted to describe Piercy’s style
as that “duffle gray blanket which wears well and suits everything” – a
phrase Woolf invents to express her sense of Scott and Trollope.2 But such
a description would be unfair to Piercy. Her style is plain and unspectacular
(the intellectual beauty of the book may pass unnoticed) but Living is
realism lightened and much speeded-up. Piercy is no Trollope. And when
fine shading is needed, Piercy gives it, especially in the realm of charac-
2 Virginia Woolf, Granite & Rainbow, Harcourt Brace, New York, 1975, p. 133.
terization. For example, note the many quirks of Honor, that splendid
character (every woman has known or been an Honor in her teens) who
is capable of saying, “that incident is hazy in my mind, which proves I feel
dissatisfied with my role” (p. 206), and who is cynical about romantic love
– she says it means only Quaaludes and crying – but who ends up crying
for “an hour straight” and exclaiming, “He said he loved me, he said it
twenty times, I swear it” (p. 265).
There’s something abrasive about the reality of Piercy’s books; they’re
too authentic to be comfortable. I don’t mean that the truths they tell are
in themselves unpleasant (although here they are) but that there’s
something about authenticity in fiction which need not be immediately
pleasing or charming, though it may be impressive. This has little to do
with one’s politics and much to do with the nature of literary cues and
expectations; as Wilhelm Reich says in The Sexual Revolution, turning “an
ordinary detective story” into “a White spy pursued by an O.G.P.U. man”
does not really change the story.3 Piercy has chosen the dangerous method
of really changing the story, and as if to burden herself further, uses a
method which looks (at least superficially) old-fashioned. This is what
makes reviewers angry and publishers uninterested and readers (except
for those who need the new truth so desperately that they’ll take it in any
form) puzzled at best. Rubyfruit Jungle is a much cuter book than The High
Cost of Living, an infinitely more winsome and boring book. It’s not
surprising that it’s Rubyfruit Jungle that’s going to be made into a movie;
it’s Hollywood’s idea of what the well-behaved lesbian should be. I don’t
want to downgrade Rita Mae Brown’s book (it’s fun and its chutzpah is a
virtue) but Piercy’s is a much more humane, complex, and truthful work.
In fact I could find it in my heart to wish Living on every women’s studies
class in the country; it accomplishes some very difficult tasks and does so
without romanticism or prettification, or, out of sheer desperation, leaving
half the topic out. For example, one of the most difficult things a novelist
can do is to present affectionate, good feeling (and the eroticism that goes
with it) outside the conventional categories of how and where one ought
to feel it. Piercy’s lesbian love scene is detailed and authentic, but her re-
creation of the simple joy people can feel in each other’s company (the joy
that suffuses the utopian society of Woman on the Edge of Time but here
occurs only briefly) is an even better accomplishment.
Literature (that means people like me) has for too long used the poor
of this world as spear-carriers or ignored them completely. As Elizabeth
Janeway comments, “To the powerful, the experience of the poor isn’t
3 Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., New York,
1974, p. 215.
REVIEWS 133
interesting; their deviance raises no questions that seem to warrant

exploring, and the trouble they make is dealt with by labeling it criminal.”4
In this sense the poor, like women, like homosexuals, like nonwhite people,
have been with us in white Western literature for a long, long time. That
is, they have been used (if at all) as projection screens for other people’s
desires and fears, typically those of the upper class, of men, of hetero-
sexuals, of whites. Consider, for example, The Homosexual as tragic
grotesque in movies and books. Piercy neither ignores, condescends, nor
(as far as my class bias allows me to see) distorts. Nor does she sing us siren
songs of daydreams fulfilled, or ornament the whole mess, verbally or
otherwise. As Woolf, herself a very charming writer, once remarked, lack
of charm counts in a woman (even among women, I would add). Living is
not charming. But it has more formidable virtues: an intense sense of
character, a direct dignity, and genuine weight. It neither snoozles up to
you, gushes, nor complains, and that’s rare.
By all means, read it. It’s an impressive achievement.
What Happened to Emily Goode After the Great Exhibition. Raylyn Moore
(Donning [Scarblaze] (Norfolk, Va., 1978, $4.95). Rime Isle. Fritz Leiber
(Whispers Press, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1977, $10.00). The Year’s Finest Fantasy.
Ed. Terry Carr (Berkley Putnam, New York, 1978). Lord Foul’s Bane.
Stephen Donaldson (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1977,
Ballantine, 1978, paper, $2.50). The Grey Mane of Morning. Joy Chant
(George Allen & Unwin, London, 1977)
Emily Goode is an archetypal female fantasy – Victorian lady in twentieth-

century America – whose appeal (I suspect) is the chance it offers for moral
cheating; one can have the thrill of being daringly improper (in nineteenth-
4 Janeway, Between Myth and Morning, p. 259.

century terms) while remaining extremely ladylike and staid (in twentieth-
century ones). To send her heroine across the modern United States, Moore
resorts to what Damon Knight once called an idiot plot (i.e. one that works
only because everyone involved in it is an idiot). Emily, supposedly so
respectable that she can’t mention sex to a suitor, even by euphemism (and
she’s a widow of thirty, not a maiden of twenty), nonetheless runs from
authority, not to it, the moment she finds herself in trouble, a piece of
plotting that not only detracts from her reality as a character but also insures
that the novel will be an adventure story, and (therefore) that there will
be no real confrontation between the values of the two eras – the only
possible point in a story with a time-displaced protagonist.1 Either the
nineteenth century can win and the heroine reject our time, or we can
win and she can accept the modern world, or (the most interesting possi-
bility, dramatically) she can outdo the twentieth century. Moore chooses
the first and dullest alternative; near the end of the book the heroine
denounces modern life, and the psychiatrist she’s seeing is impressed and
agrees with her. That is, the era of child labor, Jim Crow, robber barons,
rampant prostitution, and virtual female slavery in marriage feebly
condemns the nineteen-seventies for smog, inflation, tasteless food,2
television pictures of the moon, unisex clothing, and “wars fought without
reason and without honor.” The list is an odd one: inflation has been going
on for eight centuries, smog is surely preferable to tetanus, and if Moore
wants reasonable and honorable wars, one can only send her (with an
ironic grin) to a history of the entire world, which she may open at any
page she chooses. (The Civil War, for example, was not fought over slavery,
though Moore seems to think it was; emancipation was something of an
improvisation by Lincoln – who believed, by the way, in black inferiority.)
The trouble is that Emily Goode doesn’t see the nineteenth century as a
real era in which real people lived, suffered, enjoyed, and died. (Neither
does Bradbury, but he connects his idyll with childhood, which is
everybody’s Golden Age.) This might not matter if its twentieth century
were real, but the characters that impossible-stereotype-Emily meets on her
travels are even worse clichés than she: the philosophical cabbie and his
whiny, vulgar, insensitive wife (both with fake Brooklyn accents); the
swinging, divorced, wealthy ad-man who talks about male prerogatives in
intercourse (to a woman he’s trying to seduce!); the mannish, criminal
lesbian (who is both an orphan and an ex-WAC sergeant); and the colorful,
1 Unless you want to show cosmic catastrophe, as in the end of Wells’s The Time
Machine.
2 Food also without the germs of tuberculosis, undulant fever, typhoid and
botulism.
REVIEWS 135
liberal lawyer who talks feminism on one page and praises gallantry on
another. In short, the book is riddled with class snobbery, sexism, and
homophobia, even though Moore tries to “redeem” her characters by telling
us that the vulgar, insensitive wife is really sorry for her husband’s death,
that the exploitative swinger isn’t really a cold-blooded rapist, and that the
lesbian is really pitiable, all of which, alas, only adds condescension to the
bigotry. Moore judges her women much more harshly than her men,
without, I think, being aware that she’s doing so; the book shows one incom-
petent woman professional (a lawyer) who is squashed by a black Federal
judge – brought out triumphantly on p. 124 to validate the book’s liberal
credentials. Moore dedicates the book to her two daughters, who will, I
hope, spurn it for the cultural prussic acid that it is and instead instantly
read Juliet Mitchell’s Woman’s Estate, which will tell them why the initial
fantasy of Emily Goode is so compelling (the female role, argues Mitchell, is
in fact anachronistic). I would be less cross if the book were better written,
but Moore shows her heroine’s nineteenth-century propriety by a stiff,
abstruse, polysyllabic style which leads to howlers like “a sensible mood of
calm,” “Emily lost the quality of immediacy in her resolve,” “a vendor peered
boredly from a booth,” and the awkwardness of the one sentence that does
convey a sense of wonder (a plane trip): “Joshua had stopped the sun; who
had ripped loose the seam which joined the land to the sky?”
Nehwon addicts will probably like Rime Isle, though I suspect Fritz Leiber
didn’t. Everything’s here: strange scenery, properly lurid monsters and
gods, lots of (sometimes aimless) action, two beautiful women (indistin-
guishable from Leiber’s other pairs in other books), but the whole business
is tired; it starts with a typical mid-life crisis and ends with both heroes in
debt and (almost) married. In between, two gods intimately connected
with Fafhrd and the Mouser are dismissed to non-existence, loose ends
from other Nehwon stories are carefully tied up, the heroes learn that
adventures are for idiots, and a major war is not fought, but averted. There
is a fascinating wizard with a fine name who does almost nothing and more
imitation late Jacobean than usual, used here as a form of telegraphy:
Would Mingol mariners fight fiercely ’gainst their own in a pinch?

Mingols were ever deemed treacherous. Yet ’twas always good to
have some of the enemy on your side, the better to understand ’em.
And from them he might even get wider insight into the motives
behind the Mingol excursions naval. (p. 14)
In books as well as on TV, series tend to decay after their templates satis-
factorily establish who’s who and what’s what. I wonder if the very early
“Adept’s Gambit” was not the last of the Fafhrd–Mouser stories in which
something really happened humanly, that is, in which somebody actually
changed. Rime Isle has one good joke, the Mingol shamans’ Talmudic debate
as to whether it “is sufficient to burn a city to the ground or must it also
be trampled to rubble?” and one genuinely sinister and poetic incident –
Odin’s noose – but everything happens much too fast and, except for some
sparkling scenery, Leiber (I suspect) is trying hard to get rid of both heroes.
Rime Isle may be his way of doing it. The novel has very much the air of
an intelligent grownup (much more at home in a civilized fantasy like Our
Lady of Darkness) trying, for the last time, to please the kids. The kids may
have noticed; Rime Isle is put out not by a major publisher, but in a special
edition by Whispers Press, with pictures by Tim Kirk.3
The Year’s Finest Fantasy is a good collection with only one outright failure,
a clumsy piece of grue by Stephen King called “The Cat from Hell” which
doesn’t belong here, though King’s name (he’s the author of Carrie) makes
for good jacket copy. “Probability Storm” by Julian Reis is pleasant enough
but very derivative; “Getting Back to Where It All Began” by Raylyn Moore
is the essence of F&SF idyllic pastoral with nice names; and T. Coraghessan
Boyle’s “Descent of Man” is the kind of male competition-inferiority fantasy
modern high culture deals in a lot (“his is bigger than mine”), verbally
polished but full of unearned clichés – it appeared in The Paris Review and
not one of ours, you will be glad to hear. Another pastiche, youthfully
energetic and rather appealing, is Steven Utley and Howard Waldrop’s
“Black as the Pit from Pole to Pole,” which gives Frankenstein’s creature
further adventures and a beautiful, blind lady to fall in love with. Without
the charm of the borrowings, however (Lovecraft, Henley, Poe, Melville,
Symmes, [Mary] Shelley, Edgar Rice Burroughs and doubtless others I
missed), the story would not make it, and although it’s genuinely enjoyable
to watch the Malaprop Kids excitedly rummaging through The Classics,
somebody should’ve warned them against putting “erstwhile” and
“displacement activity” in the same sentence (except in straight parody)
and that “arcing” and “stomped” are not words. There are other screamers,
my favorite being “willing to cope with the basin’s large predators on a
moment-to-moment basis.” There is also an Expository Lump on p. 91 that
should’ve been given to the brontosaur (on p. 82) to eat.
In the top half of the anthology is “The Bagful of Dreams,” a Cugel the
Clever story by Jack Vance, as cynical, elegant, and sour as the best of them
(Vance appears not at all bored or stale). Avram Davidson’s “Manatee Gal,
3 Author’s Note: I was wrong. Whispers Press had published Rime Isle as a reprint,
surely a sign of the book’s success with its audience.
REVIEWS 137
Ain’t You Comin’ Out Tonight?” is ostensibly a horror story but really a
beautifully detailed creation of a tiny Central American country he calls
British Hidalgo, including a fine ear for accents. Woody Allen’s wispy, very
funny “The Kugelmass Episode” is perfect Woody Allen (“‘My God, I’m
doing it with Madame Bovary!’ Kugelmass whispered to himself, ‘Me, who
failed freshman English!’”), and “Growing Boys” by Robert Aickman is a
strange, very British story whose exoticism may be due simply to its
appearance on this side of the ocean. I can’t shake off the impression that
“Robert Aickman” is a pseudonym and the author is a woman, since the
tale’s subject is the cannibalistic horror of family life, from which the Every-
woman heroine is offered two escapes: decamping with another, friendly
woman (the heroine dreams at one point that they’re happily climbing the
Himalayas together) and an ideal, protective substitute father. The ending
is the kind mothers – but not fathers – dream of.
Harlan Ellison is a born dramatist. His gift of creating extreme situations
and of communicating the intense emotion evoked by them is quintes-
sentially a dramatist’s gift – all situations in drama are extreme (including
Chekhov’s, although the seemingly discursive texture of Chekhov’s plays
tends to hide this), and in drama character is an attribute of action and not
vice-versa.4 One of the problems I think Ellison has had as a short-story
writer is that there is no narrative scrape his dramatic gifts can’t get him
out of, which means in practice that until fairly recently he’s stayed with
the kind of subject that can be dealt with dramatically. (I have seen analyses
of “Pretty Maggie Moneyeyes” and “The Ticktockman” which thoroughly
– and mistakenly – demolished them from the point of view of novelistic
social realism. Then that ultra-novelistic novel, Dahlgren, appeared and
fandom thoroughly demolished it – just as mistakenly – from the opposite
point of view.) But without anybody’s noticing particularly, Ellison has
begun to move into areas drama can’t cover; “Jeffty is Five” is just such a
story. It is, I think, Ellison in transition. On one page there is a phrase as
precise as “gentle dread and dulled loathing,” on another, “I realized I was
looking at it without comprehending what it was for a long time,” which
fails because it’s sloppy – though I admit that surprise (the easiest emotion
to induce in drama) is the toughest to evoke in prose narrative.5
4 Ellison wrote the best script Star Trek ever did, “City on the Edge of Forever”
(even better in his original version), and the best I’ve seen on The Outer Limits
– the one about the soldier from the future; “Demon with a Glass Hand” tries
for much more and therefore doesn’t cover its subject with such absolute
thoroughness. (I would almost swear he had a hand in “The Inheritors”; does
anyone know?)
5 Author’s Note: I would not agree with this judgment now as the second sentence
quoted strikes me now as just as precise as the first.
In short, Ellison was too impatient or busy or involved with his material
to sit down and pick the verbal fluff out of “Jeffty” – though again and
again he’s demonstrated that if he wants to, he can. There are times I could
wish a talent-sabbatical on him, if only to force him to handle the printed
word as print, not spoken voice (“Jeffty” is full of the italics and repetitions
that are the devices of the story-teller, not the word-writer). Bradbury,
also a dramatist at heart (and with less to say than Ellison) is one of the
most economical writers alive and therefore one of the most effective. A
singing teacher once told me that voices are not made but carefully (layer
by layer) unwrapped. “Jeffty” is still half-smothered in wrappings (largely
because the material isn’t the kind that can be treated dramatically), and
the problem now is to unwrap him, that is, to make every sentence as clean
as the first. Nobody knows popular culture better than Ellison and nobody
loves it and hates it as he does. I couldn’t imagine Jeffty any more than I
can fly, but I do know that the last sentence of the story should be “They
die from new ones.” And I suspect, hopefully, that the story refuses to
smooth itself out precisely because the material is so alive and charged with
emotion, which means it may have to be wrestled with but the wrestling
will be worth it. Ellison ought not to be writing “the best of the year” but
something much better, and although he may not like the idea of his works
being taught in Lit. 101 a hundred years from now, I do. Only the preser-
vative of style can make things not only enter people’s heads and hearts,
but also stay there. I hope he does it.
Fantasies like Ellison’s, Moore’s, or Davidson’s have nothing to do with

“heroic fantasy,” that form of twentieth-century escapism pillaged from
genuine medieval culture. Samuel Delany is, I believe, writing something
he calls sword and sorcery at this very moment and may revolutionize the
genre for all we know, but until then rocky caverns full of rank stench
inhabited by evil entities with red eyes, sentences like “Peace lay over the
realm of the Wide Land,” and other signs of secondary universes in the
brewage only send me into fits of giggling followed by stupefying boredom.
(I was not so sensitive before the eighth – or was it tenth? – laser battle in
Star Wars, from which I had to be awakened several times, or so my friends
tell me; I have only a confused and whimpering recollection of the last
hour of the film.) George Bernard Shaw once said that those who have
grappled face to face with reality have little patience with fools’ paradises,
and another political radical, Virginia Woolf, stated flatly that “books of
sensation and adventure” quickly grow dull because they can only present
the same kind of thrill over and over:
It is unlikely that a lady confronted by a male body stark naked,

wreathed in worms where she had looked, maybe, for a pleasant
REVIEWS 139
landscape in oils, should do more than give a loud cry and drop
senseless. And women who give loud cries and drop senseless do it
in much the same way.6
Woolf was talking about Mrs. Radcliffe, but when the sensation is heroic
virtue instead of brooding terror, things get no better; as Suzy Charnas
once wrote to me about the fixity of Lewis’s and Tolkien’s characters:
“Arrowshirt, son of Arrowroot, son of Stuffed Shirt, THIS IS YOUR
VIRTUE!” In short, fiction’s only real subject is the changes that occur in
human beings, and since real change is the one thing that “heroic fantasy”
(with its aim of wish-fulfillment) must avoid at all costs, such fantasies
often begin with a delicious sense of freedom and possibility, only to turn
dismayingly familiar and stale unless well salted with comedy (Leiber’s
technique)7 or adorned with rapidly changing, interesting, and colorful
scenery. C. S. Lewis, who is very good at scenery, manages in this way
partly to disguise the dreadful predictability of his Narnia books – i.e. aristo-
crats stay noble, dwarves cunning, animals loyal, and peasants stupid unless
pushed by God or the Devil. After the marvelous opening of The Lion, the
Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis can find no story for his world but Christian
myth imposed like a straitjacket over the plot and no antagonist but that
old sexist stereotype, the proud, independent, and therefore wicked,
woman. Nor does George MacDonald fare much better. What to do in these
wonderful Other worlds is always the problem,8 for although reality can’t
be escaped (it being all there is), it can be impoverished and sooner or later
the mechanical predictability of the whole awful business sends you back
to such comparatively heartening works as “The Penal Colony” or “The
6 Virginia Woolf, “Gothic Romance,” Granite and Rainbows: Essays, Harcourt

Jovanovich (Harvest), N.Y., 1975, pp. 58–59.
7 Moorcock substitutes the purple perversities of a very-late-in-the-day Byronism
with much less success.
8 It is in Star Wars, whose plot events are (to put it mildly) derivative. In Le Guin’s
Earthsea trilogy there is no problem because Le Guin is concerned precisely with
the reality – i.e. the non-Otherness – of what at first appears to be Other. (This
is the subject of The Left Hand of Darkness.) The first book of the trilogy ends with
an explicit statement of this position: the young wizard, Ged, having called up
an evil shadow and pursued it across the world, finally confronts it and is able
to call it by its true name, which is “Ged.” It’s part of himself and must be incor-
porated, not destroyed. Le Guin’s position on “evil” is absolutely opposite to
Lewis’s, Tolkien’s or any other heroic fantasist’s I know; it’s close to existen-
tialism or psychoanalysis. Le Guin is interested in illuminating and confronting
reality via an invented world, not escaping from the real into an invented world.
Thus she welcomes tragedy, which “heroic fantasy” avoids like the plague except
in the ersatz form of Moorcockian Byronism.
Death of Ivan Ilyitch” where there is humanity, contingency, and reality.

The desire for escape is understandable. It’s the supply that’s spurious.
Unfortunately, after Tolkien had wrung the last drop of meaning-freighted
landscape out of an extremely tiny genre, the cry went up, “Now we know
how to do it!” and another, “There’s money in it!” and the flood began.
With orthodox heroic fantasy, one judges the quality not of books but
of guided daydreams: Lord Foul is a daydream of Byronic suffering and self-
importance in which weakness is strength and vice versa and the hero’s
terrible secret is leprosy (if only he’d explained it patiently in Chapter Five,
three-quarters of the plot would be rendered useless and much lurid
suffering avoided, but I daresay Donaldson’s attitude toward probability
isn’t mine). It’s an energetic, crude, lurid work with Tolkienesque echoes,
evil entities with names like “Drool Rockworm,” and a brow-smiting
playing with disease only possible to the young and healthy. Grey Mane is
a daydream of primitive, idyllic, nomad life which celebrates the beauty,
prowess, wonder, glory and general worthiness of male persons in the way
that only a woman can do (men know better). I hope that some day its
British author will try to claim some of this admirableness for herself, but
remembering Henry James’ remarks about Englishwomen and their
brothers (in Portrait of a Lady), I doubt it. This daydream is much more
smoothly crafted and self-consistent than the other, but both are impen-
etrably formulaic, ahistorical, full of magic (Foul) or religious ritual (Mane)
and almost totally devoid of economics and work, though Mane makes a
couple of shies at trade (the only kind of work middle-class people are
familiar with). Both make vague gestures in the direction of ecology, and
Donaldson tries to be liberal about women but clearly doesn’t know how.
Chant (ever the one for self-immolation) includes in her daydream an
independent, bitchy girl who dislikes male control and doesn’t want to
spend her life pregnant; she is “afraid of the life of a woman” and ends up
dead, while the self-effacing, suffering heroine gets the man.
Lord Foul is ersatz tragedy, Grey Mane is ersatz history, and both are stone
dead. Both are parts of a series, not surprising since life ends (its final
change) and art ends (its final satisfaction) while escape – never quite satis-
fying enough – is condemned to tread over and over the same barren
ground.
REVIEWS 141
“Book World,” The Washington Post, April 1, 1979
In Memory Yet Green: The Autobiography of Isaac Asimov, 1920–1954

(Doubleday, 732pp., $15.95). Opus 200. Isaac Asimov (Houghton Mifflin,
329pp., $10.95)
Science fiction readers devoted to the work of Isaac Asimov, that elder
statesman of the field, will enjoy this account of his childhood, his growing
up in Brooklyn, and the years in which he wrote the earliest (and most
famous) of his works. Those familiar only with his popularization of science
or those who don’t know his work at all will probably not like the book
and may even wonder what moved him to write it.
Biography is as close to impossible as art can be and two sorts of falsi-
fication are common: the bare recital of facts, in which the shape of a life
gets lost, and the imposition of a novelistic “theme” from the outside. Both
under- and over-interpretation are available to the third-person biographer
– but what if the biographer happens also to be the subject?
Asimov has chosen the bare-facts route; after his childhood memories
(which are charming) the book becomes a fairly dry list of professional
facts and a considerable number of personal ones which ought to be more
interesting than they are (Asimov is surprisingly candid about a good many
things) but which remain uninterpreted and hence unconnected. Either
the author does not want to make the effort to treat this vast mass of
material as something that demands interpreting or else he modestly
regards this work as merely a mine of information for some future second-
stage biographer.
Where time has provided the interpretation, Asimov accepts it, and, in
his account of his childhood, the young Isaac emerges as a distinct and
delightful personality – as sunny, playful, and sensible as Asimov’s own
persona as a writer of nonfiction. His family’s remembered eccentricities
are lovingly presented, like his father’s theories about germs and his
mother’s cooking. (Regarding the latter, the adult Asimov notes happily
that anyone attempting to eat Eastern European Jewish cuisine without
slow acclimatization is risking death by “pernicious dyspepsia,” but he loves
it.) There is much fascinating material here about the lives of Eastern
European Jewish immigrants in the New York of the ’20s and ’30s, about
the small businesses which drained the time and energy of whole families
(the Asimovs were slaves to their seven-day-a-week candy store: a combi-
nation of newspaper stand, ice cream parlor, and miniature Woolworth’s).
He talks about the asceticism of outright poverty (dental work was an

impossible luxury), and the intellectual striving, describing it without
explicitly pointing to it as a source for his own career.
A third-person biographer might dig much out of this book: Asimov’s
sheltered childhood and adolescence, his isolation (the candy store was a
severe controller of his free time and thus of his social life), his situation
as a favored child, his unselfconscious precocity, and his matter-of-fact
training in work and the enjoyment of work. What is not here – possibly
because Asimov is not conscious of how much he differs from other people
in this respect – is an explanation of the extraordinary imaginativeness that
produced his fiction, or the corresponding quality in that peculiar group
of eccentric and poverty-stricken youngsters who created science fiction’s
Golden Age in the 1940s. The hard-working, precocious, naive young man
described here could well have written Asimov’s nonfiction. But the writer
of such works as “Nightfall” or the Foundation series (two of the classics for
which Asimov is famous) is not in this book.
Nor is he represented by much in Opus 200, a sampler of Asimovian
fiction and nonfiction culled from the author’s second 100 books. (Yes, he
works hard!) Opus 200 emphasizes nonfiction – somewhat grayly – and of
the fiction the best is an excerpt from his recent novel, The Gods Themselves,
a charming, recent story called “Good Taste,” and two good science-fiction
mystery stories (“Light Verse” and “Earthset and the Evening Star”).
Polemical intention gives vitality to one nonfiction piece, “Lost in Mistrans-
lation,” but the rest is fairly routine science fact with a bow at history and
the historical (not literary, as Asimov points out) annotation of literature.
(Also a very early, entertainingly bad story, “The Weapon,” is reprinted in
In Memory Yet Green. First published under a pseudonym in Super Science in
1942, it was for years thought lost.)
Both of these books are useful and interesting, although the material
reprinted in Opus 200 may be found elsewhere. But neither is nearly as
good throughout as the episode of In Memory Yet Green when Isaac,
promoted to 1B2, hides at the back of his old classroom (because he likes
the teacher), “hoping no one would notice me,” until he is led, sobbing,
into his new one. The same little Asimov cried lustily at having to walk
home alone from elementary school. He was not, it seems, “frightened or
unhappy. It was just the appropriate response to being alone … a man, his
heart touched at the sight of a five-year-old boy walking down the street,
crying, stopped and said, ‘Are you lost little boy? Where do you live?’ …
I stopped crying at once, looked up at him in indignation, and said, ‘Of
course I’m not lost, I know where I live’ … Having put him in his place, I
resumed my wailing and continued to walk down the street.”
Asimov still knows where he’s going, but the subjective alchemy that
REVIEWS 143
enables him to know (and to get there) is never revealed in In Memory Yet
Green. It remains a useful, limited, special-audience volume rather than
the fascinating human exploration it might have been.
“Book World,” The Washington Post, May 9, 1979
On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978. Adrienne Rich (Norton,
310pp., $13.95)
Adrienne Rich notes dryly that “the first verbal attack, slung at the woman
who demonstrates a primary loyalty to herself and other women is man-
hater.” After the bad reviews of her previous prose work, Of Woman Born,
Rich might well have extended “the invitation to men” (in Mary Daly’s
phrase), whether sincerely or not, out of simple self-preservation. Instead
On Lies, Secrets, and Silence continues to offer its primary loyalties to women.
The author also refuses to allow her very real compassion for men (which
an astute reader will not miss) to defuse her conclusions, nor does she
parade evidence of her “humanism” (a word Rich has elsewhere said she
finds false and will no longer use).
On Lies, Secrets, and Silence can be seen as one woman’s journey past
obligatory “humanism” (early in the book Rich quotes Virginia Woolf’s
constant sense that male critics are her audience; “I hear them even as I
write,” Woolf says), to the position of a woman who does not give a damn
about such voices because she is talking to women. (Robin Morgan’s
feminist essays in the recent Going Too Far chronicle the same change and
comment explicitly on it.) The shift occurs halfway through the book, in
1974. The earlier Rich is capable of assuming (in “The Antifeminist
Woman”) that equal pay is “serious” and housework trivial; the later Rich,
freed from attending to the voices that so tormented Woolf, can state, “it
is the realities civilization has told (women) are unimportant, regressive,
or unspeakable which prove our most essential resources.”
Not a popular stand. But its uncompromising honesty frees her for some
fine things, from the bitter accuracy of “Toward a Woman-centered

University” to the splendid “Vesuvius at Home: The Power of Emily
Dickinson” (a title taken from one of Dickinson’s poems). At her best Rich
is inimitable: driving through the sentimental legend of Dickinson (Rich
points to examples like Ransom and MacLeish’s comments on her, and the
recent play, The Belle of Amherst) to the truth: Dickinson’s three words to
her niece (locking the door of her bedroom with an imaginary key), “Matty:
here’s freedom.” Or “Husband-right and Father-right” in which Rich (as
usual) says terrifying things about “the contemporary, middle-class facade
of free choice, love, and partnership” and then, Heaven help us, backs her
judgments up (as usual).
Inevitably the book is uneven. Among the best of the literary essays are
those on Dickinson, Jane Eyre (although Rich scants the difficulties of the
novel’s ending), and the contemporary poet, Judy Grahn. The others
include “Toward a Woman-centered University”, “Husband-right and
Father-right”, and “Conditions for Work.” Rich’s essays on lesbianism, like
the last essay in the book (a meditation on racism and women), are more
promising and less complete than the others, the other subjects being
matters she understands more thoroughly because they are more limited.
Her history of her own development as a poet is also here (“When We
Dead Awaken: Writing As Re-Vision”).
As Woolf has noted, charm is considered important in a woman writer
and Rich is not charming; moreover, her uncomfortable honesty takes
place in an atmosphere of passionately felt tragedy. The integrity and clarity
of this book are very old-fashioned virtues, as evident in her condemnation
of Pablo Neruda’s dishonesty (a strikingly good piece of political insight in
“Caryatid: Two Columns”) as in her silly attack on television (she attributes
to the medium itself all the vices intellectuals used to see in the movies),
or as in the too-gnomic epigrams of “Women and Honor.”
It will be no surprise if this book receives the same treatment as Of
Woman Born; those who assume that female forgiveness must inevitably
be the consequence of female compassion will be especially enraged. The
attack of “man-hater” will most likely be made. Rich, mentioning wife-
battering, father–daughter incest, the sadism of pornography, and the
forced sterilization of poor and Third World women, asks simply, “who …
hates whom.”
This is a fine book to read if you want to find out.
REVIEWS 145
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, June 1979
Immortal: Short Novels of the Transhuman Future. Ed. Jack Dann (Harper &
Row, New York, $9.95). Anticipations: Eight New Stories. Ed. Christopher
Priest (Scribner’s, New York, $8.95). Ursula K. Le Guin’s Science Fiction
Writing Workshop: The Altered I. Ed. Lee Harding (Berkley, New York, $3.95).
A Place Beyond Man. Cary Neeper (Dell, New York, $1.50)
Immortality – like death – is one of the great unrealizables, powerful in

artists’ hands not because they are capable of saying anything about it, but
because they can use it to say so much about everything else. Probably the
only interesting use of the subject can be made by the religious mystics,
since they use immortality as a metaphor for transcendence; thus in science
fiction we have Shaw’s “Ancients” (experienced, serious, memory-reliant,
detached from the body) and Stapledon’s “Last Men” (playful, wild,
physical, paradoxical, immediate, sensuous). Without the mysticism and
hence the belief in progress-as-transcendence, extrapolating from old age
results not in Shaw’s wonderful Ancients but in Swift’s horrible Struld-
brugs, while the neoteny of the Last Men decays to silly hedonism: the
immortal as game-player.
In Immortal editor Dann has assembled four novellas in which immor-
tality (conceived differently by each author) is neither transcendent nor
particularly appealing – therefore making R. C. W. Ettinger’s technophile
introduction look even odder than it is. Ettinger says that human nature
is radically imperfect and should be improved, but if so, are not the improve-
ments suggested to us by the radically imperfect judgment of our radically
imperfect natures also radically imperfect? Ettinger thinks not, nor does
he answer the question of who the “we” is who will judge what constitutes
improvement (Gene Wolfe does in “The Doctor of Death Island” and the
answer is a chilling one). Ettinger does agree with one of the stories; both
he and George Zebrowski (“Transfigured Night”) disapprove of an immor-
tality devoted to immediate sensation in the interests of wish-fulfillment.
Zebrowski tries hard to avoid the fallacy of imitative form (as one of his
characters comments, without the refractoriness of reality, wish-
fulfillment can get pretty dull) but he can only up the ante by luridness
and violence, since the story is without real conflict. The best line in it is
a visiting alien’s dry comment, “I am glad that you are not mobile.” There
are signs also that attempting to make meaningless events matter has
pushed the author into forcing the tone; there are lines like “inertia
imprisoned him in the chair as a desire to visit Evelyn seized him” and
“He slowed suddenly.” The quotes from Toffler, Ettinger, Blake, Dali,
Feinberg, Plato, “Song,” and Anonymous don’t help; the material by
Haldane does.
If Zebrowski’s immortality is meaningless hedonism (based on a false
dichotomy of “sensation” vs. “knowledge”), Wolfe’s is grimly opposite –
immortal, we are merely our old selves with all our old (and fatal) sins
upon our heads. The world of “Doctor of Death Island” is the world of
Wells’ giant corporations, a story of drab and shining detail (the under-
statement and the texture work even better the second time round) in
which long life – precarious as any, as the author makes clear – is simply
another commodity to be controlled by ambition and corporate greed. As
usual in Wolfe’s stories, people do appalling things in the quietest way and
technically the story’s lovely, with simple (and terrifying) lines like “The
book was near his head now.” And as in much Wolfe, there is a delayed-
action bang long after the last page, in this case the incidental destruction
of an entire society. Yet the story is flawed by the moralism (not morality)
that hangs over it like the shadow of Wolfe’s giant spacecraft over the
prison. The “poetic justice” of female jealousy is there (I suspect) merely
because the author can’t bear to let his protagonist go unpunished for a
murder which is, also, not quite plausible.
Pamela Sargent, with less showiness than any of the others, gets more
done; her version of immortality (the dullest: simple continuance) is
incidental to a generation gap between the long-lived humans and their
genetically changed, “rational” children, the children a fine mixture of the
admirable and the unappealing, a balance Sargent attains by careful,
realistic detail. “The Renewal” is a world in which the refractoriness of
outside reality (and other people) looms large; it is, for just this reason, the
most interesting tale of the lot. (The intractability of reality in “Death Island”
is largely author-fabricated.) Sargent presents evasiveness, ordinariness,
fear, and keeping a low profile as high-survival traits, though tragic ones.
The (hermaphroditic) children are very good in their awful way, and it
took me a while to notice the splendid things Sargent was doing with
pronouns (they’re not there and you don’t miss them).
“Chanson Perpetuelle” by Thomas Disch, along with “Mutability” in
Anticipations (and several other pieces in various science fiction magazines)
is part of a forthcoming novel, The Pressure of Time. As an admirer even to
idolatry of Disch’s 334, which I consider as brilliant as early H. G. Wells, I
must nonetheless report that the so-far-published sections of Time appear
to me not to be science fiction at all, but a mundane novel (in Delany’s
phrase, “mundus” meaning “the world”) of an in-group of aging, jaded,
experienced, sophisticated initiates interacting with an out-group of
REVIEWS 147
inexperienced, uninitiated, passionate young, the medium of action being

sexual intrigue. Despite Disch’s attempts to set the novel in the future, the
science-fictional details (of the fragments published, at least) don’t add up,
and I include the section on a spaceship. Phrase by phrase Disch is a splendid
writer, but his attempt to move a contemporary story into a (nebulous)
future results, for me, in the kind of emptiness in which a writer’s
mannerisms become annoying, in this case the foreignisms and a Mauve
Decade preciosity which were quite invisible in, say, Camp Concentration. I
suspect that Disch’s change of locale, from the United States to England
and Europe, has disturbed that unfamiliarity-in-familiarity that is at the
heart of science fiction. While even the most obvious details in 3341 like
the dream-slow passage of those great ships, the U.S.S. Melville and the
U.S.S. Dana, past the Battery evoked complex social overtones, similar
details in “Chanson” like the Brighton Wall or the pudding clubs are merely
embellishments on a landscape Disch already sees as strange, and hence
already science-fictional. (For the transformation of modern London into
the strangeness of science fiction, one must look to Michael Moorcock’s
Jerry Cornelius books – he doesn’t do it as well as Disch does New York in
334 but he does it.) One of the difficulties of the science fiction ghetto is
that of getting out of it conceptually. I would like to see the mundane novel
hidden under the science fiction embellishments of The Pressure of Time; I
suspect it would be chilly, disagreeable and impressive.
Christopher Priest’s introduction to Anticipations falls into the same error

as Disch’s novel; i.e. (as Priest says) “all good science fiction hovers on the
edge of being something other than science fiction.” I can understand
Priest’s annoyance at critics’ calling science fiction trash, but is it necessary
to erase the mode entirely in order to be respectable? Time and again
somebody in the field tries this only to come up with an indigestible cold
hash of science-fiction-plus-soap-opera or the late James Blish’s smeerps
(call it a “smeerp” instead of a rabbit). If trendy academics say that 1984 is
too good to be science fiction (as Priest reports), it doesn’t help matters to
agree with them by saying that anything good isn’t science fiction (as Priest
does). Perhaps it’s the idea that science fiction ought to resemble received
ideas about what “literature” is that led the editor to the first four stories
in the anthology, none of which is first-rate and all of which are familiar
ideas worked out in thorough, but oddly muted, detail. Robert Scheckley’s
1 If the sections are read in the original order of publication. The “chronological”
order of novel publication is aesthetically destructive. Delany recommends: “The
Death of Socrates,” “Emancipation,” “Angoulême,” “Bodies,” “Everyday Life in
the Later Roman Empire,” and “334.”
“Is That What People Do?” is a slight fantasy; Bob Shaw’s “The
Amphitheatre” is a realistically detailed (but twice-told) alien monster
which ought to count for much more in the story than it does, as should
the alien rescuer. Priest’s own “The Negation” is pure smeerp, a fake-
European allegory that could easily happen in a real country and ought
to. Ian Watson’s “The Very Slow Time Machine” has some nice intellectual
athletics, but it sets up one of those tremendously mysterious events for
which it is hard to find a plausibly tremendous explanation. Watson rings
in a Messiah, which will disappoint those who remember the last line of
Van Vogt’s The Weapon Shops of Isher. Whatever blight hit the first four tales
(the fear of being too vivid or lurid?) also clouds J. G. Ballard’s “One
Afternoon at Utah Beach,” a surprisingly flat story which promises much
more dislocation of reality than it finally delivers. Of Disch’s “Mutability”
I’ve already spoken.
There remain the slight, pleasant “The Greening of the Green” by Harry
Harrison and the good “A Chinese Perspective” by Brian Aldiss, which
backs a bit woozily into Phil Dick country – in some of its details, not in its
tone, which is sprightly and optimistic.
From the other side of the world comes Ursula K. Le Guin’s Science Fiction
Workship: The Altered I. Lee Harding, a student at the First Australian Science
Fiction Writers’ Workshop of 1975, has put together a potpourri of stories
by students and teacher, introductions, comments, postludes, writing
exercises, and general impressions of workshopping that together convey
very well the whole process of the intensive science-fiction workshop for
new writers. (There were even the grongs. As Le Guin exclaims, “That
dolphin-torn, that grong-tormented sea!” There’s always something. I
remember one workshop in which it was breakfast cereals like Cream of
Flax.) The nonfiction is excellent although most of the fiction suffers
unavoidably from its shortness and the hurried nature of its composition.
There is a first- and second-draft Le Guin story plus comments in between
(interesting but minor for Le Guin). Of the others, Annis Shepherd’s
“Duplicates” is a vignette which needs more social background and expla-
nation than it has (its complaint about the female predicament hasn’t been
fully converted into an objective, science-fictional situation); John Edward
Clark’s “Lonely Are the Only Ones” is another vignette, one of those
frustrating, exciting situations for which you can’t find a proper ending
(he doesn’t); and David Grigg’s “Islands” and “Crippled Spinner,” despite
their nicely atmospheric treatment of the loneliness and beauty of space,
are vignettes, not stories. Predictably, as with most young writers, the love
stories are the worst in the book – in general, they point to a situation and
shout “Look! Look!” – from John Edward Clark’s inflatable doll in “Emily,
REVIEWS 149
My Emily” to Rob Gerrand’s tragic “Song and Dance” to Bruce Gillespie’s

sex joke, “Vegetable Love,” to Stefan Vucak’s feverish “Fulfillment.” Randal
Flyn’s “Downward to the Sun” has more substance (a solid psychological
speculation) but needs much more detail to bring out its feeling. (Most of
the “love stories” are despairing, bitter, hopeless, or disgusted.) Of the
dialogues, Andrew Whittemore’s “Process” is stylized and good, but the
others strike me as the too-bald ones novelists would write. (We playwrights
know better.)
Of the other works Rob Gerrand’s “The Healing Orgy” is an interesting
initial situation and a good try at an imposed subject, although again a
vignette and not a story, and Barbara J. Coleman’s single-change tale is a
clever idea restricted to one or two consequences and not the thorough-
going revision of society that is science fiction’s sine qua non. The only writer
in the book I would actively warn is Edward Mundie whose “The Gift”
commits two classic mistakes: an enormously too-long time-span and the
substitution of over-abstract feeling for specific action. There remain two
superior single-change stories, David Grigg’s and Pip Maddern’s, both of
which have the authentic strangeness of science fiction. Pip Maddern is
indeed a very promising writer with her atmospheric (and oddly Le
Guinian) “The Ins and Outs of the Hadhya City-State” (though I never
believed that the communications taboos were severe enough to keep two
sane beings from communicating a secret quite that simple) and “The
Broken Pit” which is a first-rate story by any standards: funny, appealing,
and economical (I especially liked the “bang-crash stuff”).
And now I’m going to step right out of that story and kick it – and
something else – to pieces.
For there is this alien dwarf Filek, see, and there’s the alien dwarf Garn,
and he’s “he” and he’s a “he” and the Gethenians are “he” and Pip
Maddern’s single-change story character is “he” and I’ll bet you that
Maddern’s explorer of the Hadhya city-state is a “he” (the Hadhyan is) and
yet both Le Guin and Maddern are shes, dammit, shes.
So what’s up?
What’s up is the nominally male, normatively masculine usage that
ensures that males will be the normal, the ordinary, and the neutral, and
females the abnormal, special, and extraordinary all over the Galaxy – even
when a female author is talking about child-like, dwarf extra-terrestrials
who are (apparently) as sexless as turnips. This is not Pip Maddern’s fault
(or Ursula K. Le Guin’s either) but surely science fiction writers, of all
people, ought not to submit tamely to this wholesale theft of pronomial
normativeness. Bite your tongue and write “she”; if you look at it long
enough, it will actually start looking human. And for extra-terrestrials,
invent. What the normative-male usage does is to insist, usually below the
level of conscious awareness, that all us shes are special people, confined
to special (not broadly human) functions – or that we, like Gethenians, are
(sort-of) male ninety percent of the time except when we revert to being
(truly) female for the purposes of that special chapter of the human story
called Sex and Reproduction. (It’s enough to drive one piebald.) In a world
that can naively produce Jacob Bronowski’s “The Ascent of Man” (two of
my writer friends call it “The Ascent of Guess Who” and “The Ascent of
You Know Who”) how does “she” enter the verbal world of science fiction
when not pitchforked there by feminists or kept on the sidelines as an
accessory for the special-topics business?
Simple: The Special Topic is expanded to overshadow all human activity.
This is what Cary Neeper does in A Place Beyond Man (a Bronowskiesque
title, surely). “Tandra Grey,” Neeper’s heroine (and a Harlequin-romance
name if I ever heard one), although ostensibly a biologist recruited by aliens
to save Earth, really spends more than two hundred pages teasing the
bejezus out of two yummy alien males: one humanoid, rational, mild, and
ultra-controlled (but vulnerable) and one amphibian, explosive, sensual,
and all over delectable green feathers (but also vulnerable). Neeper’s
biology backgrounds are detailed and she has imaginative energy, but she
also brings in a Hollywood tot who talks baby-ese, indulges in a point-of-
view that wanders all over the place, and goes on a lot about a vaguely
conceived “ecology” (anti-greed and anti-shortsightedness) which is
Neeper’s substitute for politics. Place is, in fact, stupefyingly apolitical, since
Neeper is not really interested in saving Earth from ecological disaster but
in female erotic fantasy. She’s fairly good at it, it’s fun, and it’s certainly a
relief from the plethora of male erotic fantasy in literature (I also enjoy it
much more, naturally, although neither kind is better or worse per se than
the other).
But what a fantasy!
For the erotics of Place is the classical anti-genital, feminine “romance”
– libido as frustration. Time after time the characters indulge in super-
heated hanky-panky only to roll over and go to sleep, frustrating the reader
beyond endurance (if this is the direction you frustrate in). Twice the
heroine and an alien male strip and feel each other all over (no, I am not
making this up) after which one of them remarks, ah yes, our species are
very different, and they go placidly away. In a modern comedy like MASH,
such goings-on would lead to heavy breathing in the supply room, and
although writers aren’t obliged to put erotics into science fiction at all
(though I don’t mind if they give me fantasies I like; I’m as placable as the
next critic) it does seem reasonable to ask that horniness shall appear as
such, not distorted into the super-subtle analysis of non-existent emotion
(this sort of thing occupies a lot of room in Place) or endless physical teasing.
REVIEWS 151
The heroine never gets together with one alien; she does with the other
only after a marriage so monogamous it makes early Heinlein look like
Hugh Hefner2 and then after 221 pages of torrid build-up:
… the joy of conscious passion swept him … into full, welcome release
as their bodies sought and found each other in easy acceptance. (p.
222)
Pfaw.
Neeper didn’t invent this kind of “romantic” fantasy any more than Poul
Anderson (for example) is personally responsible for the eerily homosexual
overtones of The Star Fox – both writers could hardly avoid them, since they
are floating about in the cultural atmosphere – and Anderson, in addition,
is certainly capable (like Michael Moorcock in his heroic romances) of
putting his readers on. But writers ought to question the Blue Meanies
that turn up in their typewriters, not just accept them gratefully. The anti-
genital sexual romance is a natural female response to sexism, but it’s
self-destructive (it also muddles everything up). If Tandra and her alien,
Conn, could only get it on by page 20, not only could we have the erotic
fun, we (and they) could also go on to other things and Cary Neeper might
get to a place “beyond man” in truth where the Love and Sex specialty
isn’t the only thing the shes can do, and everyone can appear in all their
variety, person doing what per wishes with per life, na proud of nan, naself,
and na life.3
2 He will be monogamous but she won’t, a piece of chutzpah of which the author
seems placidly unaware.
3 The pronouns are from Marge Piercy’s science fiction novel, Woman on the Edge
of Time and June Arnold’s The Cook and the Carpenter. The usages become natural
in the long works in question, although they would have the effect of exoticism
in a short one, an effect a science fiction writer might well want in certain
circumstances. The feminine-preferred is another possibility, one which would
say a good deal about the society that used it. The masculine-preferred says
much about our society but nothing (for example) about Maddern’s aliens.
When it becomes visible as our usage, it’s distracting. Of course pronouns are
by no means the major part of sexism, even linguistic sexism (which is not the
major part of sexism), but words are a writer’s business. (Marge Piercy once
fought with magazine editors for weeks over an article in which she had things
like “What will Man be like in the twenty-first century? She will be compas-
sionate …” and so on.)
The Feminist Review, #5 [in The New Women’s Times, 5:14,

July 16–19, 1979]
When we were everybody: a lost feminist utopia
Herland: A Lost Feminist Utopian Novel. Charlotte Perkins Gilman (Pantheon,

New York, 1979, 147pp., $8.95; paper, $2.95)
The year is 1917. A “big steam yacht” with a “specially-made motor-boat”

and a “‘disassembled’ biplane” starts on a secret expedition to discover a
mysterious, mountain-enclosed country hidden in a remote and savage
corner of the globe. On board are three young Americans: an athletic
millionaire who says “Gosh!” a lot, quotes Kipling, and whose ideas about
women are “the limit,” and his two college chums, a sentimental South-
erner who believes in gallantry and is a “good boy,” and the narrator, a
cocky sociologist, who is full of dogmatism about his ultra-modern
profession. But what they find is neither King Kong nor a plesiosaur doing
Heaven knows what to a beautiful girl in a chromium bathing suit; it is
Herland, Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s paradise of free women.
Gilman’s feminist Utopia, written sixty-four years ago and never before
available in book form (it was serialized in her monthly magazine The
Forerunner, which Gilman wrote entirely by herself from November 1909
through December 1916), bears a striking resemblance to the feminist
Utopias written in the United States during the last ten years. Like them it
is classless, cooperative, peaceful, and in harmony with the natural world.
Like them it diffuses the maternal role. Like them it is passionately
concerned with reclaiming the public world for women (an enterprise to
which Gilman dedicated her life). Her Utopia has an ancient Greek flavour,
which gives the delicious freedom of Herland (a world in which women
go everywhere, do everything, are everyone) a cleanliness and orderliness
both pleasant and odd to modern eyes (our landscapes are wilder, our
characterizations more complex, our ideas of the possible more bitter and
more limited). There is the primitive delight of wish-fulfillment, i.e.
escorting American men all over Herland (the book follows the classic
Utopian pattern of lots of tours and discussions) and hearing them say,
“Yes, you’re right. You’re absolutely right. Feminism is the hope of the
world.” (Several times, indeed, the narrator calls his Herland love, Ellador,
a “wonder-woman” – did Charles Moulton, creator of Wonder Woman
comics, read this book?) There is also immense, sly humor (those tours
REVIEWS 153
and discussions are booby-trapped) from Ellador’s comment that

Herlanders aren’t accustomed to horrible ideas (“We haven’t any,” she says
simply) to her enthusiastic praise of romantic, heterosexual marriage:
“There is something very beautiful in the idea,” she admitted … as

if she were discussing life on Mars. “This climactic expression, which,
in all the other life-forms, has but the one purpose, has with you
become specialized to higher, purer, nobler uses. It has – I judge from
what you tell me – the most ennobling effect on character … you
have a world full of continuous lovers … always living on that high
tide of supreme emotion which we had supposed to belong only to
one season and one use. And you say it has other results, stimulating
all high creative work. That must mean floods, oceans of such work,
blossoming from this intense happiness of every married pair! It is a
beautiful idea!”
She was silent, thinking. So was I.
Yet Herland is far from perfect. For one thing, unlike modern feminists
working in this vein, Gilman is an open racist. More obvious in her other
work, her racism is here present mainly as the white solipsism which makes
Herland “Aryan” – though this decision does have the amusing effect of
presenting the explorers with transformed versions of the Gibson Girls they
would have been likely to meet back home.
Herland, unlike its modern cousins, is also a world without eroticism.
In her otherwise thoughtful introduction, Ann J. Lane is evasive about
this issue, trying to turn into feminist theory what I believe to be the ancient
female attempt to escape from the heterosexual institution by insisting that
sensuality is not really important, and that it is (or ought to be) “contained”
by love. In Of Women and Economics Gilman speaks of “excessive sex-
attraction” and “excessive indulgence” and maintains that humanity’s
“health and happiness” are being ruined by this “morbid” and “unnatural”
excess.1 The cause? An excessive degree of sex-distinction. Her biological
reasoning is false (she seems to expect only one sexual season in human
life and that much later than puberty) but her tactics are clear. If excessive
sex-indulgence can be linked to excessive sex-distinction, then Gilman will
have secured women’s freedom both from gender roles and the use of
sexuality to harass and hurt and this without selfishness, separatism,
lesbianism, or a real critique of heterosexuality as an institution.
The worst harm is done when the conditions change but the trade-off
1 Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics, Harper Torchbooks, New York,
1966.
(sensuality for freedom) continues. A recent lesbian review of The Joy of

Lesbian Sex (admittedly a somewhat nutty and confused book) ended with
the narrator’s stiff and self-righteous declaration that few of us “have such
a cold attitude towards our bodies.” We have, in the past, met so much
coercion masquerading as permission that even real permission still looks
like coercion. (If the book has one virtue, it’s the abundant permission it
gives women simply to be sexual, not loving, not affectionate, not “in love,”
but simply lustful.)
Gilman, stuck with the trade-off of sensuality for freedom, creates a
Utopia with a gap in its passions. She tries to fill the gap, dramatically
speaking, by emphasizing the passion of motherhood to the point where
I (along with the American macho millionaire) wished the Herlanders
would shut up about the subject. This emphasis may have been a reaction
to her own situation – she had been violently attacked in the press, at the
time of her divorce, for having agreed that Gilman’s small daughter should
live with her father and his new wife (a close friend of both Gilman and
the little girl). It’s certainly a clever way of answering anti-feminists who
insist that motherhood is incompatible with public life (in Herland public
life is broadened motherhood). And it is an inexpressible relief for a reader
to at last enter an imaginary world in which babies exist – everywhere! –
and such lovely ones. Gilman knows what babies enjoy as she knows –
mostly – what grown women need, especially life’s most crucial necessity
– pockets.
Letter
Dear Editors,
In Feminist Review number five, in my review of Charlotte Perkins
Gilman’s Herland, I mentioned Herland’s white solipsism but quickly passed
on to a subject that interested me more, thus demonstrating some pretty
obvious white solipsism of my own. The matter is all the worse because
Gilman wasn’t merely a thoughtless racist, but a genuine, explicit bigot,
complete with nineteenth-century eugenics theories. In fact, Gilman’s
whole biological package – which she didn’t create singlehandedly, of
course – is the standard nineteenth-century line, from her views on the
hierarchy of races to her idea that excessive sex is harmful, to the notion
that females “select from competing males” (untrue for our chimp and
monkey cousins, by the way).
It’s not only painful to see one of our (our?) heroines, so sensitive to
oppression-by-sex, turning around and pulling the same act on someone
else; it’s also extremely frustrating not to be able to accept Herland
REVIEWS 155
unreservedly that one (who?) tends to pretend that Gilman’s racism is

minor or doesn’t matter or doesn’t need talking about. The historical trade-
off made by parts of the women’s movement in the nineteenth/early
twentieth century (we’re female, but the “right” color/class) never really
works in the long run. And the subject of how white women don’t “see”
racism when it gets in the way of something they want to enjoy is surely
as important (at least) as Gilman’s understandable evasion about sex.
When we were everybody. Well, not exactly everybody …
Frontiers, IV:1, 1979
Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. Mary Daly (Boston: Beacon

Press, 1979, 485pp., $14.95)
That’s not an issue.

That’s not an issue any more.
Then why do you keep on bringing it up?
You keep on bringing it up because you are crazy.
You keep on bringing it up because you are hostile.
You keep on bringing it up because you are intellectually irresponsible.
You keep on bringing it up because you are shrill, strident, and self-
indulgent.
How can I possibly listen to anyone as crazy, hostile, intellectually
irresponsible, shrill, strident, and self-indulgent as you are?
Especially since what you’re talking about is simply not an issue.
(Any more.)
Mary Daly has written a wild, whirling, terrifying, ecstatic, haggard1
book. In Beyond God the Father Daly was reasonable, temperate, civilized,
1 Merriam-Webster: “haggard: intractable, willful, wanton, unchaste, especially

a woman reluctant to yield to wooing.”
and continually emphasized in the most charmingly responsible way that

she was speaking to men as well as women; between that and Gyn/Ecology
a great deal of life and consciousness (and undoubtedly the book reviews
of Of Women Born et al.) has happened; the result is a quantum leap that
will be seen, beyond the shadow of a doubt, as “anti-male.” Daly says so
herself and adds dryly: “Even the most cautious and circumspect feminist
writings are described that way” (p. 29). So what the hell. Gyn/Ecology does
not bother to make the usual ritual gestures of deference, liberalism,
compassion, humanism, and whatnot (“I’m not angry! I’m not threatening!
Don’t kill me!”) As Daly says, the “primary intent of women who choose
to be present to each other … is not an invitation to men” (p. x). The way
in which the glossy surface of patriarchy has closed over the feminism of
only a few years ago is amazing: “Of course all that was true six or seven
years ago, but we’ve taken care of those questions and it’s very rude to
mention them now. Besides, the women’s movement is dead.” Gyn/Ecology
is a terrifying book because of its bad manners, because of its poetry, because
it rips through the thin veils of the accommodations under which we all
shelter, and because it threatens us with a return to the basics – and the
anger and terror they rouse.
Gyn/Ecology has two faces, one a description and celebration of the
feminist journey into authenticity, into “new space” (not colonized or
conquered space but newly created space), and the other an investigation
into patriarchal myth, which Daly finds always the same, whatever the
culture. “Wrenching back some wordpower” (p. 11) is one method for
doing both, a method both poetic and indescribable, since it depends so
heavily on the whole context of the book. The simplest example of such
techniques is denunciatory punning like “The Godfather” or the trinity as
“the consummate conglomerate” (p. 75); the most rich and complex is
Daly’s use of the word “spinning” which assimilates the spinning of the
Fates, galaxies, spiders, argonautic shells, whirlpools, the whirling of
prophecy, and spiralling organic motion of all kinds into an image of free-
being-traveling so profound that one must read the whole book to
appreciate it. As Daly says of Scylla and Charybdis, “Spinsters are at home
in whirlpools” (p. 377). And after two careful readings I’m still not sure
what she means by the female “deep Background” which has been masked
by the monodimensional male Foreground (though the usage feels right)
or why her search for the archaic/obsolete meanings of words – a search
she knows perfectly well does not “prove” anything – works. The book is
one long crime of Methodicide (one Daly highly recommends, since one
of the sins of patriarchy is Methodolatry).
The mythic reclaiming of the cosmos for women, the ecstatic journey
and its dangers, culminates in a exorcism of the Deadly Sins of the Father,
REVIEWS 157
a marvelously funny piece and one it would be highly educational to see

enacted at, say, the Modern Language Association annual conference, the
American Psychiatric Association, and other patriarchally sacred occasions.
But Gyn/Ecology is also about material extremely painful to read: Indian
widow-murder, the crippling of female feet in China, and (contemporary)
female genital mutilation in Africa. Daly’s chapters on the European witch
murders and American gynecology/psychotherapy aren’t exactly cheery,
either, but the material here is at least more familiar and hence less freshly
horrifying.
But surely I mean suttee, foot binding, and female circumcision, not these
loaded words “murder”, “crippling,” and “mutilation”?
No. I don’t and she doesn’t. It’s a tribute to patriarchal conditioning that
calling these horrors by their right names is frightening. Like the women
in women’s studies classes who insist that “the women who died in suttee
had ‘free choice’” (p. 123), the accurate naming of atrocities against women
makes women very uneasy. Surely it can’t be that bad! What sort of a
world are we living in? Is Daly trying to start a war? But the war is already
going on: suttee is murder, foot binding is crippling – it breaks bones and
the rotting flesh continues lifelong, while genital mutilation is torture for
which there is really no adequate name. According to Freud, in patriarchy
it is men who suffer from the fear of having their penises cut off. Oddly
enough, in patriarchy it is women who (still, in parts of the world) suffer
from the fact of having their clitorises cut or burned off or their inner
vaginal lips sewn together until healed shut, then cut open (with a knife)
for intercourse at marriage, sewn together again, cut open again for delivery
after pregnancy, sewn shut again, and so on lifelong.
Worse than the descriptions of the phenomena themselves (to readers
of Gyn/Ecology who are presumably physically secure from them) is the
obliteration, the glossing-over, of both native and imported horrors in
Western scholarship or their transformation into something harmless,
quaint, or (Heaven help us) erotic. Daly documents this patriarchal double-
think. If any section of her work betrays personal heat beyond the usual
accusatory punning, it’s her talk of witch burnings and the church2 and a
few parts of the section on gynecology/therapy. Daly is (was) a Catholic
theologian who’s had her face rubbed in the church’s particular brand of
sandpaper; what can one say, after all, about “archbishop Roberts (one of
the ‘radicals’ at the Second Vatican Council)” who had lived for years in
India and told the author, in the mid-sixties, that “suttee is the ‘logical
2 Not the documentation of torture or the anger against modern authorities like
Zilboorg but, for example, the use of Montague Summers, who is too easy a
target.
conclusion’ of female nature” (p. 120)? Daly calls modern medicine awful
names, and she also documents a widespread belief in American medicine’s
complicity in the reconstruction of real women into The Totalled Woman
or fembot (both phrases hers): breasts and uterus automatically removed
as “breeding grounds” for cancer, menopause prevented by estrogen
(which increases the chances of cancer), and so on. This section would be
more telling if Daly remembered to remind us that J. Marion Sims, the
revered “architect of the vagina,” who performed dozens of operations on
black slave women in the 1840s and thirty on an indigent Irishwoman in
the 1850s (to develop and perfect his surgical discoveries), did so without
anesthesia. Nor would it be amiss to see Freud’s theory of the double orgasm
(without anatomical evidence, but eagerly adopted) as a psychological
attempt at African infibulation (the bride’s vulva sewn-to-order for the size
of her fiancé’s penis), both being a reconstruction of female sexuality into
male-designed artifact.
Why this “Sado-Ritual Syndrome”? (Daly’s words.)
She contends (and I think she is right) that the fundamental myth of
patriarchy is Goddess-murder – her earliest example is the story of the
killing of Tiamat by Marduk – and that this murder is daily re-enacted in
patriarchy on the bodies and minds of living women. Daly traces cross-
cultural similarities, including the obsession with “purity” and the use of
women as “token torturers.” Thus it is women who broke the bones of little
Chinese girls’ feet (otherwise no man would marry them), women who
mutilated African girls’ genitals (otherwise no man would marry or sleep
with them), women who advertise cosmetics on television or write books
on how to be properly totalled, and so on.
I could not at first understand Daly’s insistence that femininity has
nothing to do with women, that femininity – what a bizarre assertion! –
is a male trait, and yet she is right. We’re still all too prone to talk as if
“femininity” were produced by the selective obliteration of some natural
female traits and preservation of others or the exaggeration of some traits
at the expense of others. But Daly is more perceptive: Femininity is a male
projection of a solution to problems in the male situation, which is then imposed on
women. That is why Daly states that she will no longer use the word
“androgyny.” Femininity is not an incomplete part of anyone’s character
but a man-made mess from the word go. Daly is not extending an invitation
to men and so does not explore the male psychology involved but Jean
Baker Miller’s Towards a Psychology of Women3 does. Miller says the problems
are vulnerability, sexuality, and dependence. I would add the terror of
3 Jean Baker Miller, Towards a Psychology of Women, Beacon Press, Boston, 1976,
pp. 21–26.
REVIEWS 159
freedom and the problem of evil – both of which are operative in any
situation where oppressor–oppressed live as close together as men and
women often do; under such conditions, the distortions that are required
exact immense psychological and social energy.
In short, the primary project of patriarchy is to get rid of women, and failing
that somewhat impractical aim – besides, if you get rid of your scapegoat
once and for all, you’ll only have to find a new one – to transform real,
living women into the nonhuman, the subhuman, the merely-convenient,
the all-but-nonexistent. Certainly this is what the myths and legends say,
from the killing of Tiamat to the clear-eyed serene, sexless, maternally
vigilant madonnas used to sell cold medicine on TV.
Daly also documents the male institutions’ stealing of female functions,
from churchly maternity (she is very funny on this) to an equally witty
comparison of astronauts-who-are-fetuses (the famous Russian–American
handshake in space) with fetuses-who-are-astronauts4 (Robert Byrn’s
attempt to prevent abortions in New York by legally representing all fetuses
due for abortion in the city).
Gyn/Ecology is not just a horror show. It is also a stunning description of
a feminist journey into new space, sometimes rhapsodic, sometimes a
warning. For one thing, Daly is magnificently dead-set against self-sacrifice.
She also warns in the strongest terms against anti-intellectualism while
cheerfully tossing academicism out the window. In her introduction she
admonishes us gravely: “This book contains Big Words, even Bigger than
Beyond God the Father, for it is written for big strong women, out of respect
for strength. Moreover, I’ve made some of them up …” (p. xi).
Perhaps the best things here are not even the ideas that can be detached
and pointed to, but the texture of thought that is feminism, female in its
imagery, feminist-in-its-sharing. In her introduction Daly talks about
women’s oral tradition, quoting Deena Metzger: “And why do you persist
in thinking only one of us can use it. Shall we footnote every thought and
breath … The first man on the moon … That isn’t our game, is it? That
only the first counts. Each idea they devise gets used up so quickly … No
wonder…” (p. xiv).
This is a long, hard, complicated, repetitive book whose use of language
may well annoy readers the first time around. It may also frighten the
dickens out of them. It is nonetheless a tremendously important work.
Near the end of the book Mary Daly almost succeeds in breaking/freeing
language (poets must read this book: they’ll be dissatisfied with it but it
will start them in the right direction). It’s almost impossible to convey the
4 As Daly points out, both metaphors see the fetus as controlling the mother, who
is envisioned as unconscious and inanimate.
effect of anything in Gyn/Ecology out of context – oh, how you’re going to

hate this book the first time around!5 – but here is a statement near the
end, advice to the book’s readers and to us all:
“In the beginning was not the word. In the beginning is the hearing.”
(p. 408)
Listen.
Frontiers, IV: 2, 1979
The Mermaid and the Minotaur: Sexual Arrangements and Human Malaise.
Dorothy Dinnerstein (Harper & Row, New York, 1976, 288pp., $3.95)
Dorothy Dinnerstein’s The Mermaid and the Minotaur is not a popular book.
It has crept into public notice relatively without ballyhoo. This statement
is partly an excuse for writing a review, in 1979, of a book originally
published in 1976 and out in paperback a year later, partly a criticism of
reviewers (why didn’t they sing under my pillow, flag my car down on the
highway?), and partly praise for the Old Girls’ network that stubbornly
insisted on plugging it anyway (“Haven’t you read …?,“ “Maude says …,”
“I found this book …”). The vocabulary of critical praise has become so
inflated nowadays that when I read Sara Blackburn’s comment on the back
cover of MM that the intellectual excitement of reading Dinnerstein is
comparable to that of reading early Freud, I merely “humphed,” and yet
Sara Blackburn is telling the truth. Dorothy Dinnerstein’s argument is so
brilliant, so ingenious, so wide, so novel, and so obvious that I can’t trust
myself to do it justice, especially in a few paragraphs. What she has done
5 Two careful readings did not convince me: then I suddenly woke up a week
later, dazzled, shouting, “It’s true, It’s all true!”
REVIEWS 161
is to unify biology, history, and psychology in the interest of explaining

not “the cause” of sexism but its profoundest motivations in both men and
women. In this union of Darwin, Marx, and Freud (so to speak) none is
reduced to the status of epiphenomenon or made a “reflection” of any of
the others. Dinnerstein has taken one very obvious fact and much of the
not-so-obvious thought of the past century-and-a-half and fused the lot
in a rare intellectual triumph. To recognize that sexism is not all force and
fraud seems to leave as an alternative only the craven surrender to “biology”
– or rather, the kind of quasi-biology that asserts that either women are
genetically inferior or men genetically horrid. Dinnerstein goes beyond
such silly-simple notions to a conclusion which produced in me all the
embarrassing hilarity of finally discovering the haystack after you’ve spent
decades looking for the needle in it. The things this book explains! For
example, the uneasy, unstable co-existence of feminism with protest
against class privilege – and why the latter has always been so much more
visible (when visible at all) than the former; why, when force and fraud
are subtracted from sexism, sexism still somehow remains (while when
force and fraud are subtracted from the hierarchy of class, nothing
remains); why (although Dinnerstein only implies this) the modern male
Left so often appeals from the unnaturalness of class domination to the
supposed naturalness of the family or of the relations between the sexes;
and above all why the astounding obviousness of Dinnerstein’s explanation
has been so long ignored by so many supposedly acute thinkers (she doesn’t
say this but the corollary is there).
The power of this book to illuminate more than its own data is extraor-
dinary: Dinnerstein can explain not only much of the course of human
history (which she chooses for its power to exemplify her thesis) but also
random events, like best-sellers, which she did not choose and knows
nothing about. Contemporary with my copy of MM (same week, same
store, many more recommendations, though not by the same people) was
a wretchedly self-contradictory best-seller called My Mother/My Self by
Nancy Friday, as good an illustration of Dinnerstein’s thesis as could be
found anywhere. My Mother/My Self first denies and then makes the very
assumptions Dinnerstein pinpoints: everything is Mommy’s fault; women
are women’s worst enemies; men are ineffectual, glamorous presences
who initiate nothing and take all their cues from women (i.e. Mother is
all-powerful); and that the cure for all this is maternal self-sacrifice of the
usual, impossibly angelic sort, as well as an awful lot of (heterosexual,
naturally) sex.
Popular culture tends to produce these caricatures from time to time,
and yet the striking thing about Friday’s book is not its abundant foolishness
(she calls Jane Fonda’s life “sexless” and gets her psychoanalytic theory
from an informant she calls “Dr. Robertiello” while he addresses her as

“Nancy”), but its blatant summing up of a certain kind of female American
thought. Every women’s studies teacher, for example, knows the female
student who comes into her office and announces defiantly that she’s going
to get married – the world is still full of girls who think that heterosexual
alliances with men represent a form of rebellion against sexless Mommy.
How do these young women imagine their mothers ended up where they
were? Yet the hope persists that heterosexual activity (a little wilder than
stuffy Mom’s) will provide access to the men’s freer, wider world. Mother’s
function as the forewoman who polices Daughter’s sexuality, in many
American families, gives some color to this notion – that an alliance with
men is an alliance against Mother – and yet these girls must have at least
the suspicion that Mom made the same bargain. And surely they know
that heterosexual alliance can’t confer membership in the men’s world but
only a place (Mother’s place, in fact) on its sidelines. But they don’t. And
so they end up married, leading the same life as Mother, or – if unlucky –
a worse one with less bargaining power. And their daughters repeat the
process. Sexuality, asked to bear too much social and emotional freight, is
often one of the casualties.1
Dorothy Dinnerstein explains why. Crucially, she takes the dictum that
it’s all Mommy’s fault and goes one step beyond – to locating the “fault”
in the inescapable conditions of human infancy and early childhood (no
matter whose hand is rocking the cradle) and comes up with an analysis
a review ought not to spoil by possible misrepresentation. As Dinnerstein
notes, without female collusion patriarchy would collapse, and although
feminist theorists have traced much of the male emotional investment in
the scapegoating of women, no one has illuminated so powerfully why
1 It’s tempting to call this the “Zelda Bargain.” Surely the notion that hetero-
sexual alliance with men will free one from the stuffy, ordinary life Mother had
to live was one of the illusory promises acted upon by Zelda Sayre, the prettiest
girl in Montgomery, Alabama, whose rebellion took the form of popularity with
men and sexual “wildness” (of a sort daring enough in her own day) and who
later, as Mrs. Scott Fitzgerald, spent much of her adult life locked in a mental
asylum against her will, dying finally in an asylum fire. Her most earnest wish,
near the end of her life, was the very unromantic one of being able to earn her
own living. The Fitzgeralds, mutually destructive, lived out Dinnerstein’s thesis:
possession of the magic, feminine figure (of whom he has many fictional
portraits in his work) did not make Scott happy and the heterosexual alliance
did not set Zelda free. Dinnerstein actually argues that what a woman acts out
in this bargain is both a wish to enter the male domain of freedom (literally so
because it is out in the public world and magically so because it is seen as free
of Mother’s early authority) and the project of lending her person to “getting
back at mama.” But as Anne Sexton remarked, she is mama. The bargain is
unworkable because it is self-contradictory, for both men and women.
REVIEWS 163
and how women lend themselves to the same activity. One of the things
Dinnerstein thoroughly understands is how pervasive the sexist double
standard is and how a particular act, done by Joan, carries a very different
meaning from the same act done by John – in short how power, selfishness,
and insensitivity, seen as merely unethical or wrong when present in men,
become monstrous, overwhelmingly, wickedly unnatural when displayed
by women – and that both men and women see things this way. It’s possible
now (and has been at times in the past) to admire female strength if such
strength is seen as nurturing (that is, something that exists for others) but
female wealth, power, domination, and glory are unqualifiedly evil if
nonnurturant (that is, practiced for the gratification of the woman herself)
even if we immediately add honesty and competence to the list. Dinner-
stein’s explanations and arguments are cross-cultural here and very
convincing.
I should not keep the central arguments of books a mystery, but any
brief statement of the theme of MM is misleading. This book is a linchpin
of feminist analysis and one of the most exciting (and simply useful) intel-
lectual triumphs of the feminist movement. Dinnerstein is pessimistic in a
tough-minded way that inspires a paradoxical hope in the reader – things
may be unfixable (as she suspects), but surely such brilliant understanding
augurs something better than despair.
MM is not a long, footnote-freighted, scholarly work but rather a distil-
lation of years of thought. Characteristic of sexist discourse is a contention
both that feminism is a protest against the human condition (that is, sexism
is natural and immutable) and that it is irrelevant to the human condition
(that is, trivial). Dinnerstein derives sexism right from the human
condition, said human condition not imagined as a mystical unity involving
the entire status quo but as an interlocking set of carefully defined, specific
phenomena, in particular the uniquely human combination of self-
reflective intelligence and the dependency of a prolonged infancy. She also
indicates how the project of ending sexism not only joins with, but also
subsumes the project of the destruction of tyranny and the dissolution of
the neurotic knot formed by the human hatred of carnality, the human
fear of death, and the human overloading of the unique human capacity
for enterprise or labor. Her prescription is a grim one: human beings will
grow up when the possibility of scapegoating is not available. (There is a
specific means for doing this, by the way, although Dinnerstein can’t
provide a foolproof way of enforcing the means, but it would be foolish to
take the book to task for not providing everything.) Dinnerstein believes
that it may be too late to keep the human species from the “massive,
immediate threat” of extinction (a threat she links carefully and very
persuasively with sexism) and yet:
Whether understanding makes a difference or not, we must try to

understand … To fight intelligently, armed with your central
resource, which is passionate curiosity … is for me the human way
to live until you die. (p. viii)
Let us, rather, hope for a rosier future for a species of which one member
could produce this brilliant, heartening, necessary, Galilean book.
Author’s Note
Although I no longer think that Dinnerstein’s theory explains “women’s”
lives – it’s neither cross-class nor cross-cultural, nor does it apply to any
but the white professional middle class of her generation and mine – still
as a description of a particular class at a particular time in the United States
it will do well enough. I can’t regard it now with the enthusiasm I displayed
in this review, though.
In the February 1979 issue, Joanna Russ wrote a column raking over the “barren
ground” of current fantasy (and, especially, heroic fantasy). Her comments gener-
ated dozens of letters of vehement disagreement (some were published in the July
issue), and the column below was written in response to those letters.
Critics seem to find it necessary, at least once in a career, to write a statement

defending criticism per se. Shaw, Pauline Kael, Eric Bentley, and James
Blish have all done it. That I’m doing it too doesn’t prove I’m in the same
league, but it does indicate the persistence of the issues involved and that
they occur outside, as well as inside, science fiction.
I have tried to speak to general issues rather than “defend” my own
criticism. Issues are, in any case, more important than personalities,
although there is a (small) section of fandom which sees in aesthetic or
REVIEWS 165
political disagreement nothing but personal squabbling motivated by envy.

It’s not for me to judge how good my criticism is; if enough readers think
it’s bad, and the editor thinks so too, presumably he’ll stop printing it,
although writing book reviews (except for places like The New York Times)
is underpaid, overworked, and a labor of love. The problem is usually to
recruit reviewers, not discourage them.
Here are some of the complaints that keep coming up:
1. Don’t shove your politics into your reviews. Just review the books.
I will – when the authors keep politics out of their stories. But they
never do; in fact, it seems absolutely impossible to write anything without
immediately making all sorts of assumptions about what human nature is,
what good and bad behavior consists of, what men ought to be, what
women ought to be, which states of mind and character are valuable, which
are the opposite, and so on. Once fiction gets beyond the level of minimal
technical competence, a reviewer must address these judgments of value.
Generally readers don’t notice the presence of familiar value judgments in
stories, but do notice (and object to) unfamiliar ones as “political”. Hence
arises the insistence (in itself a very vehement, political judgment) that art
and politics have nothing to do with one another, that artists ought to be
“above” politics, and that a critic making political comments about fiction
is importing something foreign into an essentially neutral area. But if
“politics” means the relations of power that obtain between groups of
people, and the way these are concretely embodied in personal relations,
social institutions, and received ideas (among which is the idea that art
ought not to be political), then such neutrality simply doesn’t exist. Fiction
which isn’t openly polemical or didactic is nonetheless chock-full of politics.
If beauty in fiction bears any relation to truth (as Matthew Arnold thought)
then the human (including social and political) truth of a piece of fiction
matters for aesthetic reasons. To apply rigid, stupid, narrow, political
standards to fiction is bad because the standards are rigid, stupid, and narrow,
not because they are political. For an example of (to my mind) profound,
searching, brilliant, political criticism, see Jean-Paul Sartre’s Saint Genet.
2. You don’t prove what you say; you just assert it.
This statement is, I think, based on a cognitive error inculcated
(probably) by American high school education. The error is that all proofs
must be of the “hard” kind, i.e. cut-and-dried and susceptible of presen-
tation in syllogistic form. An acquaintance with the modern philosophy of
science would disabuse people of this notion; even a surprising amount of
scientific proof is not of this kind. As philosophers since Plato have been
pointing out, aesthetic and moral matters are usually not susceptible of
such “hard” proof.
3. Then your opinion is purely subjective.
The assumption here is that matters not subject to cut-and-dried “hard”

proof don’t bear any relation to evidence, experience, or reason at all, and
are therefore completely arbitrary. There is considerable indirect evidence
one can bring against this view. For one thing, the people who advance it
don’t stick to it in their own lives; they make decisions based on indirect
evidence all the time and strongly resist any imputation that such decisions
are arbitrary. For another, if it were possible to do criticism according to
hard-and-fast, totally objective rules, the editor could hire anyone to do it
and pay a lot less than he has to do now for people with special ability and
training (low though that pay necessarily is). It’s true that the apparatus
by which critics judge books is subjective in the sense of being inside the
critic and not outside, unique, and based on the intangibles of training,
talent, and experience. But that doesn’t per se make it arbitrary. What can
make it seem arbitrary is that the whole preliminary process of judgment,
if you trace it through all its stages, is co-extensive with the critic’s entire
education. So critics tend to suppress it in reviews (with time and training
most of it becomes automatic, anyway). Besides, much critical thinking
consists of gestalt thinking, or the recognition of patterns, which does occur
instantaneously in the critic’s head, although without memory,
experience, and the constant checking of novel objects against templates-
in-the-head (which are constantly being revised in the light of new
experience) it could not occur at all.1 Hence angry readers can make the
objections above, or add:
4. Everyone’s entitled to his own opinion.
Have you noticed how often people say “I feel” instead of “I think” or
(God forbid) “I know”? Kids who discover “It’s a free country!” at seven
graduate to “Everyone’s entitled to his own opinion” by fourteen. The
process of intimidation by which young people are made to feel humanly
worthless if they don’t appreciate “great literature” (literature the teacher
often doesn’t understand or can’t explain)2 is one of the ghastly facts of
American education. Some defenses against this experience take the form
of asserting there’s no such thing as great art, some that whatever moves
one intensely is great art. Both are ways of asserting the primacy and
1 I used to inform people of the endings of television plays (before the endings
happened) until my acquaintances gently but firmly informed me they would
rather the endings came as a surprise. When asked how I knew what was coming
by friends who enjoyed such an odd talent (and some do) I could explain only
part of the time. The cues people respond to in fiction or drama are complex
and people are not always fully conscious of them.
2 Or oddities that entered the curriculum decades before and refuse to be
dislodged, like “To a Waterfowl.” For some reason students often end up with
the most sophisticated, flawed, or least accessible works of great writers: twelve-
year-olds reading Romeo and Juliet, for example, or Silas Marner.
REVIEWS 167
authenticity of one’s own experience, and that’s fine. But whatever you
(or I) like intensely isn’t, just because of that, great anything, and the
literary canon, although incomplete and biased, is not merely an insiders’
snobbish conspiracy to make outsiders feel rotten. (Although it is certainly
used that way far too often.)
The problem with literature and literary criticism is that there is no
obvious craft involved, so people who wouldn’t dream of challenging a
dance critic’s comments on an assoluta’s line or a music critic’s estimate of
a prima donna’s musicianship are conscious of no reason not to dismiss
mine on J. R. R. Tolkien. We’re all dealing with language, after all, aren’t
we? But there is a very substantial craft involved here, although its material
isn’t toes or larynxes. And some opinions are worth a good deal more than
others.
5. I knew it. You’re a snob.
Science fiction is a small country which for years has maintained a
protective standards-tariff to encourage native manufactures. Many
readers are, in fact, unacquainted with the general canon of English liter-
ature or the standards of criticism outside our own small field. Add to this
the defensiveness so many people feel about high culture and you get the
wholesale inflation of reputations James Blish lambastes in The Issue At
Hand. Like him, I believe that somebody has to stop handing out stars and
kisses; if “great writer” means Charles Dickens or Virginia Woolf (not to
mention William Shakespeare) then it does not mean C. S. Lewis or J. R. R.
Tolkien, about whom the most generous consensus of mainstream critical
opinion is that they are good, interesting, minor authors. And so on.
6. You’re vitriolic too.
It’s true. Critics tend to be an irritable lot. Here are some examples:
“That light-hearted body, the Bach Choir, has had what I may befit-
tingly call another shy at the Mass in B minor.” (George Bernard Shaw,
Music in London, v.ii, Constable & Co., Ltd., London, 1956, p. 55)
‘This eloquent novel’, says the jacket of Taylor Caldwell’s The Devil’s
Advocate, making two errors in three words …” (Damon Knight, In
Search of Wonder, Advent, Chicago, 1967, p. 29)
“… Mr. Zirul has committed so many other failures of technique that

a whole course in fiction writing could be erected above his hapless
corpse.” (William Atheling, Jr. [James Blish], The Issue At Hand,
Advent, Chicago, 1964, p. 83)
Why do we do it?
First, there is the reactive pain. Only those who have reviewed, year in
and year out, know how truly abominable most fiction is. And we can’t
remove ourselves from the pain. Ordinary readers can skip, or read every
third word, or quit in the middle. We can’t. We must read carefully, with
our sensitivities at full operation and our critical-historical apparatus
always in high gear – or we may miss that subtle satire which disguises
itself as cliché, that first novel whose beginning, alas, was never revised,
that gem of a quiet story obscured in a loud, flashy collection, that exper-
iment in form which could be mistaken for sloppiness, that appealing tale
partly marred by (but also made possible by) naiveté, that complicated
situation that only pays off near the end of the book. Such works exist, but
in order not to miss them one must continually extend one’s sensitivity,
knowledge, and critical care to works that only abuse such faculties. The
mental sensation is that of eating garbage, I assure you, and if critics’
accumulated suffering did not find an outlet in the vigor of our language,
I don’t know what we would do. And it’s the critics who care the most
who suffer the most; irritation is a sign of betrayed love. As Shaw puts it:
“Criticism written without personal feeling is not worth reading. It is

the capacity for making good or bad art a personal matter that makes
a man [sic] a critic … when people do less than their best, and do that
less at once badly and self-complacently, I hate them, loathe them,
detest them, long to tear them limb from limb and strew them in
gobbets about the stage or platform … In the same way really fine
artists inspire me with the warmest possible regard … When my critical
mood is at its height, personal feeling is not the word; it is passion.”
(Music in London, v.i. Constable & Co., London, 1956, pp. 51–52)
But there are other reasons. Critical judgments are so complex (and take
place in such a complicated context), the vocabulary of praise and blame
available in English is so vague, so fluid, and so constantly shifting, and
the physical space allowed is so small, that critics welcome any way of
expressing judgments that will be both precise and compact. If vivid be added
thereunto, fine – what else is good style? Hence critics, whenever possible,
express their judgments in figurative language. Wit is a form of conden-
sation (see Freud if you think this is my arbitrary fiat) just as parody is a
form of criticism (see Dwight McDonald’s Modern Library collection thereof).
Dramatization is another. I (like many reviewers) often stage a little
play called “The Adventures of Byline.” Byline (or “I”) is the same species
of creature as the Kindly Editor or The Good Doctor, who appear from time
to time in these pages. That is, she is a form of shorthand. When Byline
rewrites story X, that doesn’t mean that I – the real, historical personage
– actually did or will or wish to rewrite story X, or that I expect its real,
REVIEWS 169
historical author to rewrite it to Byline’s prescription, any more than my

saying that “my” copy of Bug Jack Barron tried to punch “me” in the nose
means that such an event really happened. Pauline Kael’s Movie Loon is
another such fiction; these little creatures we send scurrying about the page
are not our real, live selves, and their exploits are dictated more by the
exigencies of our form than by a desire for personal glory.
7. Never mind all that stuff. Just tell me what I’d enjoy reading.
Bless you, what makes you think I know? (See, there goes Byline.)
Actually critics can make educated guesses from time to time about the
tastes of some groups of readers. Editors must, such judgments being their
bread and butter – and look how often they fail. If judgments of beauty and
truth are difficult, imagine what happens when the issue is escape reading,
i.e. something as idosyncratic as guided daydreams. Perhaps the popularity
of series novels is due in part to readers’ desire for a reliable, easily repro-
ducible pleasure. But the simplest good–bad scales (like The Daily News
system of stars) is always colliding with readers’ tastes. Some writers and
publishers, in order to be sure of appealing to at least a stable fraction of
the market, standardize their product. This can be done, but it tends to
eliminate from fiction these idiosyncratic qualities other readers find
valuable, art being of an order of complexity nearer to that of human beings
(high) than that of facial tissues (low).
Now back to the topic of heroic fantasy, which occasioned the foregoing.
I know it’s painful to be told that something in which one has invested
intense emotion is not only bad art but bad for you, not only bad for you
but ridiculous. I didn’t do it to be mean, honest. Nor did I do it because the
promise held out by heroic fantasy, the promise of escape into a wonderful
Other world, is one I find temperamentally unappealing. On the contrary,
it’s because I understand the intensity of the demand so well (having spent
my twenties reading Eddison and Tolkien; I even adapted The Hobbit for the
stage) that I also understand the absolute impossibility of ever fullfilling that
demand. The current popularity of heroic fantasy scares me; I believe it to
be a symptom of political and cultural reaction due to economic depression.
So does Robin Scott Wilson (who once electrified a Modern Language Associ-
ation seminar by calling Dune a fascist book) and Michael Moorcock (see his
jacket copy for Norman Spinrad’s The Iron Dream, a novel which vehemently
denounces the genre in the same terms as Wilson does),3 and the writers of
Bored of the Rings, the Lampoon parody from which came “Arrowroot, son
of Arrowshirt.”
3 Though Dune is, strictly speaking, science fiction. Wilson was talking about the
great leader syndrome, and the heroic atmosphere Dune shares with heroic
fantasy.
Briefly, to answer other statements in the letters, I apologize for implying

that Tolkien’s hobbits and Ents (or his other bucolic-comic creations) are
as empty-sublime as the Big People’s heroics. But I agree (see question 5)
that Tolkien is a good, interesting, minor writer whose strong point is his
paysages moralisés. Ditto C.S. Lewis, in his Narnia books. As for other writers
mentioned, only strong, selective ignoring could miss the Vancian cynicism
or the massive Dunsanian irony (sometimes spilling over into despair)
which make their heroism far from simple or unquestioned by the authors
themselves. As for the others, I find them gharstly when uncorrected by
comedy, or satire (Morris, sometimes), or (in Beagle’s case) the nostalgic
wistfulness which belongs to fantasy per se rather than the publisher’s
category (that, historically, is what it is) of heroic fantasy. I don’t need to
badmouth Poul Anderson, James Blish having already done so, calling him
(in his heroic phase) “the Thane of Minneapolis… Anderson can write
well, but this is seldom evident while he is in his Scand avatar, when he
seems invariably to be writing in his sleep” (The Issue At Hand, p. 72). That
our literary heritage began with feudal epics and märchen is no reason to
keep on writing them forever. And daydreams about being tall, handsome
(or beautiful), noble, admired, and involved in thrilling deeds are not the
same as the theoretical speculation which produces medical and techno-
logical advances.
It isn’t the realists who find life dreadful. It’s the romancers. After all,
which group is trying to escape from life? Reality is horrible and wonderful,
disappointing and ecstatic, beautiful and ugly. Reality is everything. Reality
is what there is. Only the hopelessly insensitive find reality so pleasant as
to never want to get away from it, but painkillers can be bad for the health,
and even if they were not, I am damned if anyone will make me say that
the newest fad in analgesics is equivalent to the illumination which is the
other thing (besides pleasure) art ought to provide. Bravery, nobility,
sublimity, and beauty that have no connection with the real world are
simply fake, and once readers realize that escape does not work, the glamor
fades, the sublime aristocrats turn silly, the profundities become simplifi-
cations, and one enters (if one is lucky) into the dreadful discipline of reality
and art, like “The Penal Colony.” But George Bernard Shaw said all this
almost a century ago; interested readers may look up his preface to Arms
and the Man or that wonderful little book, The Quintessence of Ibsenism.
It’s disheartening to see how little has changed. On the other hand, there
is no pleasure like finding out the realities of human life, in which joy and
misery, effort and release, dread and happiness, walk hand-in-hand.
We had better enjoy it. It’s what there is.
REVIEWS 171
“Book World,” The Washington Post, January 24, 1980
The Beginning Place. Ursula K. Le Guin (Harper & Row, $8.95). Fireflood and
Other Stories. Vonda N. McIntyre (Houghton Mifflin, $10.95). Yesterday’s
Children. David Gerrold (Fawcett Popular Library, $1.95). The Demon of
Scattery. Poul Anderson and Mildred Downey Broxon (Ace, $4.95)
In The Beginning Place Ursula K. Le Guin has returned to the intrapsychic

landscape of her earlier fantasies (such as the Earthsea triology) and has
had her characters reject it as a permanent habitation. Two modern young
people, Hugh and Irena, discover a strange, fantastic realm, which Irena
calls “the ain countree,” and which they enter, are changed by and finally
leave behind as they return to the real world.
In the essay “From Elfland to Poughkeepsie” (Pendragon Press, 1973;
also included in The Language of the Night) Le Guin distinguished the
genuine, risky Inner Lands (“Elfland”) from the banal imitation which is
really the outside world in disguise (“Poughkeepsie”). In The Beginning Place
she brings Elfland into violent contiguity, as it were, with Poughkeepsie,
both places rendered in a gray, gritty, realistic style which may annoy fans
of the author’s more colorful fantasies but which strikes me as an impressive
Le Guinian advance.
About the inner landscape (which takes up most of the book) I think
there can be no question: Le Guin is past-mistress here, from the too-simple
wish-fulfillment of the beginning to the seeming lack of explanations to
the sophisticated, conscious use of the Hero-Kills-Dragon myth to the final
fading away of the protagonists’ earlier loves as they enter a dream-perfect
union and finally rejoin the real world. But back in Poughkeepsie the
author has created a world so socially and politically abominable that to it
the Inner Lands’ classic, fairy-tale progression (from family of origin to
reproductive family, a pattern that made sense in a stable, feudal society
built on such progressions) is simply irrelevant.
In short, Elfland and Poughkeepsie are badly out of gear here, a situation
which forces the author into inadvertent lies about the latter; that working-
class people are inarticulate, that marriage is a mystical, once-for-all fusion
(of the right people only, of course), that clumsy, shy Hugh is a possible
real man (and not a woman’s dream of one), that his gentleness will not
vanish with his guilt over his mother (though Le Guin has previously
connected the two), and that achieving his (carefully atypical) ambition
will not lead to intense disillusionment.
Place falls flat at the end since the author can imagine no potential change
in Poughkeepsie commensurate with the beauty and terror of the changes
that have occurred in Elfland. The novel comes perilously close to recom-
mending marriage for women and marriage-plus-upward-mobility for
men as a victory over our system that produces exhausted, battered wives,
embittered husbands, poverty, and a trashy life for almost everyone. But
Le Guin’s own socially conscious description of the real world in Place makes
that solution totally inadequate. The Beginning Place, for all its beauties,
remains hanging in the air; there is literally no place for the characters to
return to save permanent residence in Elfland, a choice the author is far
too sane and responsible to make.
Vonda N. McIntyre’s apparently simple method of putting one foot

carefully, rigorously and systematically in front of another leads her, at her
worst, into merely intelligent and interesting stories and, at her best, into
some very good ones. Fireflood and Other Stories contains the deservedly
famous “Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand” (the story won a Nebula; the book
Dreamsnake, which was a continuation of the story, a Nebula and a Hugo);
a fine, early nightmare, “The Genius Freaks”; and to my mind the best
piece in the collection, the magical novella “Aztecs,” which blends a trans-
figured Seattle (most of the setting is underwater), sacrifice, biological
technology and lost love in a way unique in McIntyre’s work and rare in
science fiction. (McIntyre’s men, like Le Guin’s Hugh, are the kind women
wish for, but McIntyre’s future worlds are also matter-of-factly sexual-
egalitarian, which makes the existence of such men a good deal more
plausible.)
The author’s speculations are biological and solidly so, her work is
compassionate, often incomplete (for example, the politics of the story
“Screwtop” are vague although the landscape and the changed mores are
– as usual – very good) and almost always concerned with rendering how
it feels to be intelligent and nonhuman, from the exuberant flying carni-
vores of “The Mountains of Sunset, the Mountains of Dawn” and “Wings”
to the earth-burrowing, volcano-tasting heroine of “Fireflood.” Critics have
noted McIntyre’s feminism, but (at least in this collection) alienation –
usually literal – is her real subject, and alien(ated) beings her heroes. As a
dolphin, in “The End’s Beginning,” reflects tragically, “Humans have a
terrible need to put things inside other things, to overcome the inevitable
randomness of life. People know better.” (italics mine).
David Gerrold knows nothing of war, the psychology of command, or the

behavior of men cooped up on a deteriorating spaceship – all the ostensible
subjects of his Yesterday’s Children – and yet his very human obsession with
REVIEWS 173
putting things inside things slowly creates something authentic and inter-
esting. This reality may inhere in the exhaustively imagined ship itself, the
only convincing element in the book, although its details are heavy going at
first. Even the ending, extraordinarily silly in realistic terms (the characters
are likewise impossible) works somehow as part of the grim, claustro-
phobic, tiring, ultimately worthwhile metaphor that the novel becomes.
The Demon of Scattery by Poul Anderson and Mildred Downey Broxon is a

badly inflated publisher’s package: big type, bigger margins, a small novella
and lots of handsome off-key illustration by Alicia Austen. Within, one
learns that a man may rape a woman repeatedly, murder her family and
deprive her of her profession, but if he says he is sorry and satisfies her in
bed, she will love him, forego revenge and live with him happily ever after.
“It was a brutal age,” says Anderson defensively in his afterword about
the ninth-century setting. Then why write about it except as protest (the
Strugatskys) or nightmare warning (James Tiptree Jr.)? Demon does it for
fun. There is much casual brutality and stiffly antiquarian detail, and one
good sea-serpent which should have devoured the entire project, especially
whoever thought up charging readers five times what the wordage would
cost elsewhere. Caveat emptor.
On Wings of Song. Thomas M. Disch (St. Martin’s Press, $10.00). Painted

Devils. Robert Aickman (Charles Scribner’s Sons, $8.95). Kindred. Octavia
Butler (Doubleday & Company, $8.95). Universe 9. Ed. Terry Carr
(Doubleday & Company, $7.95). New Dimensions 9. Ed. Robert Silverberg
(Harper & Row, $10.95). The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and
Science Fiction. Ursula Le Guin, ed. Susan Wood (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, $9.95)
Thomas Disch is a sinister writer. I mean by this that his work – most strik-
ingly his latest novel, On Wings of Song – is an ominous attack on the morals
and good customs of Middle America. I also mean that Disch, although an
insider-turned-outsider (according to the flap copy of his story collection,
Fun With Your New Head, he grew up in Minnesota, one of the repressive
“Farm States” of Song, and “escaped” to New York), is not a direct revolu-
tionary but a left-handed user of such methods as irony, parody,
exaggeration, and other forms of oblique subversion. Bitterness lies under
the surface of his wit, or rather is conveyed via his wit, and Song is sometimes
chilly and disagreeable in its unremitting view of desolation. Although
there is a revolution for the better, it takes place (typically for Disch) off-
stage, and in comparison with the conventional treatment “sympathetic”
characters receive in most fiction, Song’s people may strike readers as
abrasively unpleasant. In part Song compensates with comedy; in part Disch
simply doesn’t care to gum up his art with the karo syrup of conventional
sympathy. When one’s subject is the art of survival as practiced in extreme
situations, auctorial button-pushings of readers’ feelings are merely imper-
tinent. For one thing, they assume that suffering matters only when it
happens to nice people. And they neglect the indictment of a whole culture,
which is Song’s real subject. In place of the moral judgments which usually
pass for characterization in literature, Disch gives us close attention to the
how and why of behavior; even the mad Mrs. Norberg and the awful, elder
Mueller are treated with analytical care and a kind of respect. When a
prison-mate’s family sends him not food at Christmas (the prisoners are
deliberately starved by the authorities) but snapshots of their Thanksgiving
dinner, the protagonist’s reaction is fascination, not moral indignation –
moral indignation is, after all, a luxury of the relatively secure; the truly
powerless can’t afford it. Except for a pervasive irony that is so much a part
of Disch’s oblique method that he probably can’t drop it (though it’s
occasionally annoying), the book is unusually free of instructions to the
reader about how the reader is supposed to feel. In fact the irony usually
functions against the grain of the emotion: an asbestos-gloves method of
handling difficult material. Some readers will feel cheated without a built-
in instruction sheet; others may welcome the relative novelty of prose that
keeps its eye on its object.
Song, a book about outsiderhood, is also about art and transcendence
and the repression (and achievement) of both. There is the transcendence
of “flying” (a kind of astral-travel-cum-psychedelic-trip) and the song –
not necessarily art – which catalyzes it. There is the literarily traditional
story of the young man who escapes from the provinces to achieve success
in art in the big city. There is the linking of art and the urban milieu to the
bizarreries of male homosexuality (a bel canto revival complete with castrati
that Disch invents for the purpose). Only in this last area is the book less
than clear, as if the author never decided whether to exploit the social
REVIEWS 175
myth of homosexuals-as-grotesques or to deny it; in the end he does both

and – what is much worse – equivocates about his hero’s relation to the
whole subject so that on one page Daniel has been a hustler for years, on
another he contemplates the possibility with distaste (p. 247), on yet
another he’s already actively homosexual (p. 274), and on yet another he
seems to dismiss the possibility altogether (p. 254). I suspect Disch was
novelistically tempted by the link popularly supposed to exist between
homosexuality and artistic talent, although the linkage – art is also
grotesque and crazy – is hardly one either side can want to support. At
times the novel almost moves into the Anita Bryant-esque view of the flap
copy (New York “peopled by grotesques and seething with corruption”)1
although the grotesques are only people, and the corruption much less
than that of the Farm States.
That one cloudy area aside, Song is a brilliant, flamboyant, extraordi-
narily original work. And how he can write! There is the completely
American penal colony of Spirit Lake (I hope the author’s model was merely
a summer camp), the descriptions of flying, the fuel shortage that coincides
with a newspaper strike “as though winter had overtaken not only nature,
but history as well” (p. 23). And here is a nine-year-old already so versed
in family manipulation that he placates a mother who might return to live
with him by the carefully politic, “Gee, Mom, I hope it works out so you
can come and live with us.” But it’s stressful and he hasn’t the resources
of an adult; the fact that he’s on the phone gives Disch a method of saying
as much without instructions-to-the-reader and without judgment: “He
put the phone on Hold before she could reply” (p. 7).
Science fiction writers and readers often talk about uniting science fiction
with the mainstream; Disch has done it, not by hybridizing modes (a process
someone tries in vain every now and again) but by pushing the possibil-
ities of science fiction to the limit. On Wings of Song is a superb book.
In Painted Devils Robert Aickman has left out the parts of his horror stories
which explain what is happening and why, thus achieving a mystifying non-
compossibility (i.e. you can’t put the damned thing together) which appeals
to the Literary Guild Newsletter as “distinguished.” Stories of his, isolated in
other anthologies, can look appealing because his prose does have more
literary polish than is usual in the genre, but in a collection the method
becomes clear and quite exasperating. Despite the deliberately ambiguous
surfaces of these tales, their basic ideas are banal, with the exception of
“Marriage,” an interesting satire that trails off into mystification.
1 Written, I suspect, by the author in a merry mood. Who else would perpetrate
a phrase like “the lovely Boadicea Whiting”?
Octavia Butler’s Kindred is more polished than her earlier work but still
has the author’s stubborn, idiosyncratic gift for realism. Butler makes new
and eloquent use of a familiar science-fiction idea, protecting one’s own
past, to express the tangled interdependency of black and white in the
United States; the black heroine’s great-great-grandfather is a white man
who can, half voluntarily, call her back into his time to help him in
emergencies; Dana, drawn wholly involuntarily, must save him to preserve
her own ancestry, at least until the conception of her great-grandmother
– and Rufus is a Southern slave-owner, confused, spoiled, a rapist with a
remarkable gift for self-destruction. Kindred is a family chronicle set in a
small space; the limitations let Butler concentrate on the human relations
and the surprising-but-logical interplay of past and present. (What other
author would think of taking Excedrin to pre-Civil War Maryland?)
Although characterizations in the past are detailed (Rufus as a little boy is
especially good) Dana’s present-day marriage is sketchy and her aunt and
uncle, who disapprove of her white husband, are talked about, not shown.
Past events may simply have crowded out the present or Butler may mean
to indicate that Dana’s present-day difficulties in being black are nothing
to her past ones – she gets shut of the appalling Rufus only, finally, by
killing him. Kindred is exciting and fast-moving and the past occurs without
a break in style – a technique that makes it more real – even down to
characters’ speech (Butler describes their accents but wisely doesn’t
attempt to reproduce them). The end is crossed-fingers hopeful with some
chance of sanity “now that the boy is dead” though Dana has assured her
own birth at a price: her left arm, lost at “the exact spot Rufus’s fingers had
grasped it” (p. 261).
Terry Carr’s Universe 9, the latest in his series of original anthologies, is a

good collection, generally optimistic-social in tone, with only two wispies
(Mary C. Pangborn’s over-familiar “The Back Road” and Juleen Branti-
ngham’s over-arch “Chicken of the Tree”) and one clunk, John Shirley’s
“Will the Chill,” a tale of stylized, melodramatic, macho power-and-agony
in which the beautiful, young heiress, committing suicide for love of the
alienated, superduperman hero, does so not even in her own space-yacht
but in her daddy’s. Of Carr’s other choices “Frost Animals” by Bob Shaw
is an s.f. detective story with routine characters but a good, ingenious puzzle
and a striking solution; Gregory Benford’s “Time Shards” has a fine s.f. idea
but a philosophical conclusion that would strike modern historians or
sociologists as pretentiously false (it’s precisely commonplace talk from the
past they would find valuable); and Greg Bear’s “The White Horse Child”
is a pleasant story about imagination, not new in theme or manner but
well detailed. Of the remaining three authors Marta Randall, by turning a
REVIEWS 177
cliché on its head (i.e. changing its personnel) produces a funny, shame-
lessly sentimental and to my mind irresistible mother–daughter story (“The
Captain and the Kid” is both the story’s title and a description of the cliché
in question.) Novitski and Varley, occupying the same feminist territory
as Randall but in more realistic fashion, portray the difficulties of future,
sexually egalitarian societies. Novitski has, I think, the edge, since he
concentrates (in the fine, solid detail of “Nuclear Fission,” a story
reminiscent of Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time) on male fears of
abandonment: who will love men if women move into new territory with
other women? The theme is tailor-made for bitterness, which Novitski
avoids, though there is some unavoidable cheating; as in Varley’s story,
present-day characters inhabit a future world into which they don’t quite
fit (e.g. Novitski’s Spider shuns male company for reasons which make
sense in this world but not in his). Written about a woman’s process of
change (a doubtful business to begin with when a male author is attempting
a feminist point) “Options” seems to maintain that even in a sexually egali-
tarian society the only people who can really treat the sexes equally are
those who’ve experienced life as both – though at the same time the
convincing, mildly drab lunar society Varley describes is clearly not egali-
tarian, a contradiction with which the author doesn’t fully deal. Biology
matters, or should, but it doesn’t, or shouldn’t – Varley’s metaphor of
androgyny brings with it hidden assumptions that the problem is a physical
problem.2 Varley has been admired for his female characters and “Options”
is very well written (there are details that are a real tour-de-force for a
male writer), yet the story is really the fearful husband’s, not the serene
and informative wife’s, as its lack of emotional involvement and its
summaries of what should be dramatized make clear. “Nuclear Fission” is
less calm, less sophisticated, and the better story, though Varley is a more
accomplished writer than Novitski.
Robert Silverberg, editor of New Dimensions, has always been as weighty,

pessimistic, and experimental in editorial temperament as Terry Carr is
genial, playful, and optimistic. New Dimensions 9, whether by accident,
design, or the youth of the authors (four of the eleven pieces are first publi-
cations and two more are nearly so) is all this and more – it is a strikingly
homogeneous collection in which almost all the stories deal with the alien-
ation of white, well-to-do men from their own emotionality and from other
2 Androgyny is often used as a metaphor for psychic wholeness. Readers who

like to tunnel about in libraries can try Women’s Studies Vol. 2, No. 4 (1974) for
a history and analysis of the concept in Western thinking. Four scholars, one
of them male, argue that the idea is confused and made for cop-outs and that
its history is at best mixed.
people, especially women, the authors employing for this purpose machine
imagery that often goes beyond the informative into the obsessive. The
hero of Timothy Arthur Sullivan’s “The Rauncher Goes to Tinkertown” is
a brutal, agonized, half-machine superman isolated on a desert planet; in
Peter Alterman’s “Binding Energy” a computer personality first fails, and
then takes over the body of, a fifteen-year-old girl; “The Square Pony
Express” by Felix Gotschalk is a world of machine adventure (“I made it.
Yay!” p. 115) while in “Last” by Michael Conner, the last man alive on
earth, more or less in league with the robots who are running things,
betrays and then executes the last woman, who (unlike him) wants to live
and fight back. In Tony Sarowitz’s “A Passionate State of Mind” a scientist
who’s failed at human relationships (especially with his daughter) finds
Nirvana in a machine (which stops time), while in Gregory Benford’s
“Calibrations or Exercises” the unhappy, alienated characters (Alpha, Beta,
Delta) merely act mechanically and are talked about in terms of mechanism
and calculation. In Jeff Hecht’s “Crossing the Wasteland” a man coming
out of ten centuries of “pseudocold” (as eloquent an unconscious symbol
as John Shirley’s Will the Chill in Universe 9) finds himself in a depopu-
lated world run by machines and is at first mistaken for a computer
malfunction. In Donnan Call Jeffer Jr.’s “The Sands of Libya Are Barren,”
a story not really in this group, the characters aren’t machines but they are
dead and existing in a desert, in an interesting, ghostly state Jeffers keeps
spoiling with fascinated comments on his own paradoxical situation as the
writer of the story, a new-writer phenomenon much like the discovery by
new film-makers that they can turn the camera upside down, both groups
being unaware that everyone except themselves long ago got bored with
both techniques. (The female-preferred pronouns don’t help, as they refer
to nothing in the invented society and so merely look trendy.) Also dead,
and in something like Hell, are the characters in Bruce Taylor’s “The
Attendant,” a surreal situation that never becomes a story despite Taylor’s
attempt at a redemptive ending.
It’s as if the authors (with the last two as possible exceptions) had woken
up one morning in David Bunch’s Moderan or in a Barry Malzberg novel.
Yet without Bunch’s loud ridicule (or Malzberg’s agonized moral sense)
the attempt to claim sympathy for the afflictions of privilege and power
that neither the characters nor the writers show much inclination to give
up strikes me as questionable. There is a lot of false fatality in these stories.
Some, indeed, are having a good time: Gotschalk produces a plethora of
machine details that would numb a human and Hecht’s implicit cure for
his wasteland is an old-fashioned, ambitious, Analog hero who rejects the
only other human being in the story for not being beautiful, sexual, warm,
and inspiring – no lovely, suicidal heiress, she. The stories also show a
REVIEWS 179
strange brutality of style, an incapacity for the simple, the slight, or the
low-contrast, as if the authors were half anesthetized and could register
nothing but the loudest and heaviest impressions – this may merely be a
fault of youth but I find it too appropriate to their material for comfort.
And then there’s Ursula Le Guin. Well! “The Pathways of Desire” is a
splendidly middle-aged story with details that double back and bite you
the second time round, from the fangless hotdog to the H. Rider Haggard
cosmic constant that female names end in “a” (as the Indian Ramchandra
says to the Russian-named Tamara). The heroine isn’t quite old enough to
be middle-aged (though that may be the point; it’s a state of mind) and
the love affair is a little too much idealized (people’s babble in love is usually
silly) but otherwise “Desire” is a dazzler which Le Guin has loaded with
intellectual-fictional dissonance; the story barely holds together and almost
self-destructs in mid-air, a virtuoso performance that exactly suits the
writer’s theme.
Perhaps the rest of the anthology ought to be sent to Le Guin’s story to
be psychoanalyzed, but “Desire” is really dealing with the masculine
mystique in its historically earlier, ascendant (or Edgar Rice Burroughs)
phase when hypertrophy of the chilly will brought other rewards than
isolation and despair. (It’s no coincidence that Marc Feigen-Fasteau’s
recent analysis of the destruction wrought upon men by sexism is called
The Male Machine.)3 Of the bunch, Gregory Benford exercises considerable
technical skill on long-dead material and Peter Alterman captures some
feeling, despite the compulsive overplus of machine detail. Peter
Dillingham’s poetry strikes me as too high-contrast, like a TV with the color
control turned way up, but I’m no expert on poetry. (Could the Kindly
Editor store it all and give it, once a year, to a real poet?)
Perhaps, instead of sending New Dimensions 9 to “The Pathways of Desire”

for help, one might send it to The Language of the Night, a collection of Le
Guin’s essays edited by Susan Wood, although Le Guin does not talk directly
about sexism’s depradations. Authors like Le Guin are perpetually being
asked to “talk about their work,” and since that is tantamount to recounting
the cute things your cat did last week, authors respond – as Le Guin largely
does here – with criticism. Of these intelligent and novelistically graceful
essays, the weakest seem to me those in which the author tiredly repeats
the obvious, usually at the prodding of a publisher, the best pieces written
spontaneously and affectionately for fan magazines. At times Le Guin’s
teacherly generosity keeps her at too elementary a level; “From Elfland to
Poughkeepsie,” for example, is a model of how to do this sort of thing well,
3 Dell, New York, 1975.

but it’s also something a fine mind ought not to do so often. There are some
thoughtless or derivative remarks, as is inevitable in a collection of largely
occasional pieces, e.g. Le Guin’s traditional walloping of politicians (Shirley
Chisholm?) and oddities like her condemnation of “sensualists” (p. 124) –
do we still have them? What are they? Do you keep them in the refrig-
erator?
If there’s an overall flaw in Language it’s Le Guin’s passion for morality
and how that passion is likely to be misused by readers. She notes it herself
(p. 128) and is flexible enough to avoid its dangers in pieces like “The Child
and the Shadow” or the absolutely first-rate piece on Philip K. Dick, but
many of her readers won’t be. Much American youth, partly because of
the movies, views moral decision as a choice between safety, comfort,
happiness, and cowardice on the one hand and on the other misery,
wretchedness, and the obedience to abstract rules. In such a scheme virtue
amounts to self-destruction and nobody sane can choose it; thus the myth
adds an all-dominating faculty called “conscience” which exists only in
good people (that’s how you know they’re good). College sophomores,
ignorant of their own limits and meager resources, go out into the world
expecting to act on this romantic view of themselves; naturally they fold
up at the first real crunch, and not having experienced the rush of conscious
moral exaltation the myth tells them to expect, they turn either into guilt-
ridden worms or baby cynics who think all they have to do to become rich
and happy is to be immoral (they usually can’t pull that off, either). Nobody
ever told them that within the area of what is generally allowable in civilized
life, most choices are purely prudential, or that severe moral choices are a
signal of drastic social breakdown and hence abominably unpleasant
double binds.4 Le Guin’s tendency to ethicize all issues feeds into this
destructive mystique; I can only hope readers of Language also read “The
Pathways of Desire,” which is an argument along quite different lines.
One of the surprises of the collection is the author’s delicious sense of
comedy, from her “mad visions of founding a Hobbit Socialist Party” (p.
173) to a scene with a cat, a child, and a telephone cord that ought to be
reproduced entire in fiction. Susan Wood, who comments and introduces
too much, nonetheless deserves the thanks of all lovers of Le Guin’s work
for initiating and editing this volume.
4 Even these are choices between two values. If all the values are on one side,
where’s the choice?
REVIEWS 181
Sinister Wisdom, 12, winter 1980
“Listen, There’s a Story for you…”
Retreat As It Was! Donna J. Young (The Naiad Press, 7800 Westside Dr.,
Weatherby Lake, Missouri, 64152, 120pp., $5.00).
In Literary Women Ellen Moers notes that nineteenth-century women

writers’ insistent presentation of public acclaim for female genius in their
fiction is due to “the impossibility of ever having [it] in real life” and that
the embarrassingly “raw fantasy” of such scenes comes from having been
“starved for centuries.”1
Retreat: As It Was! by Donna J. Young is a heartbreaking non-book,
although with training – especially someone to stand over her, yelling
“Details!” every time she drifts into summary – she might eventually
become some sort of writer. Retreat was written out of sheer starvation,
published ditto (unless we’re to believe that Naiad is simply being oppor-
tunistic), and will be read for no other reason, if it’s read at all.
Ostensibly science fiction, Retreat’s science comes from incoherently bad
television; it’s a mixture of faster-than-light communications and
spacedrive, inexplicably endless sources of light and power, and no other
method of transporting the wounded from a grounded spaceship to a
provincial settlement than “pack animals” (with “spines” but otherwise
undescribed), a grueling six-or-seven-day, hypothermia-inducing journey
which looks bafflingly like a rather Darwinian version of triage. Since the
wounded receive only psionic healing (the women disdaining such
primitive devices as bandages, food, water, antibiotics, etc.), why not send
the healers to the ship? But Retreat mystifies all its technology. Here are the
book’s only descriptions of technological activity, quoted entire:
The room she entered contrasted to [sic] the rustic simplicity of the
post. Instead of cave-like walls and fur-lined floors,2 there were
gadgets and square corners, levers and dials, hard stone underfoot.
1 Ellen Moers, Literary Women, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., 1977,
p. 278.
2 No one does any house-keeping in this book, even where details like furry floors
suggest a lot of potential for mess.
Lita, Tulla, Ain, and a few others were gathered around a console,
making calculations. (p. 12)
They turned and began the process of tuning the complicated

machinery to the biological rhythms that were Ria’s alone. First Lita
placed her hand on a yellow, translucent square. She brushed her
other hand over a series of colored plates to the left of the yellow
square. Ria laid her hand down on the square next to Lita’s and
pressed the same plates in reverse order to Lita’s. Lita then removed
both hands from the console. (p. 14)
The walls of the central room had been energized into multi-dimen-
sional [sic] representations of various sectors of the known universe.
Women were busy entering data, making changes in this diagram or
that, running multitudes of machines and equipment. (p. 76)
And here is Retreat’s description of the cosmic disaster that ruins the
women’s sophisticated technology, leaves them vulnerable to the new
crops of (mutation-induced) male children, transforms the fourth planet
into the asteroid belt (I think) and proves that we’ve been on Earth all the
time, thus validating that “jaguar” on page 1 (the book otherwise refers
vaguely only to “large predatory beasts”):
They were thrown to the ground. The earth shivered beneath them
and roared in agony. The force of the vibrations rolled Ria and Mar
across the open space, into each other and finally against another
boulder. The buildings collapsed. The pyramid shook. Women inside
the buildings screamed in panic.
The quake died down, but another rolled in right behind it. Ria
tried to regain her feet and fell again. The second shock ended soon,
but the pyramid suffered more damage. Finally, only small vibra-
tions rattled through the Post and Ria could stand. (pp. 90–91)
If I quote from Retreat at such length it’s because I want to convey as

forcefully as possible the absolute, limp, thinness of the book. Not only is
there no science, no government, and no economics here, as well as barely
any visualizable scenery or people characterologically distinguishable from
one another, but Young’s avoidance of concrete detail seems at times to
amount to deliberate policy. Thus we have such annoying vagueness as
“refreshments” (p. 73), “a steaming herb drink” (p. 71), “nutrient cubes”
(p. 98), and “small portions of various foods” (p. 39), plus “a richly aromatic
mug of liquid” (p. 87) – I suspect the author means that the liquid is
REVIEWS 183
aromatic, not the mug, but that still doesn’t tell us what the stuff tastes
like. Young’s ear is so leaden that she can flood Retreat with said book-isms
(like “‘Ha-ha-ha-ha-ho’, Ain laughed”, p. 42) and barbarisms like
“younglings” (children) and “the Mystery of Parthenogen” (pregnancy) or
indicate one educated Sister’s provinciality by having her say “I dunno”
(p. 62) and the other’s sophisticated ease by “I wouldn’t want to enslave
a sister to an unhealthy emotional attachment” (p. 63). But these remarks
aren’t characterizations since everybody in Retreat is like everyone else,
totally good, harmonious, loving and non-erotic save for two who fall in
love at first sight but don’t get it on until they want to reproduce (or at all
thereafter), a piece of Christian-fundamentalist prudery of which the
author seems unaware.
What is the book about? Hugging, I think. Thirty-nine (non-erotic) hugs
and seventeen incidents of weeping occur in one hundred and six pages,
which averages out to one hug per 2.7 pages, one weep every 9.4 pages,
and one of either (if you’re not picky) every 1.9 pages. Unhappily visible
under the surface of this story is an all-female commune in which everyone
lives on welfare or child-support, in which there is a little child-care (but
no messy diapers), a little herbal medicine, a little massage, a little yoga,
no sex unless you are In Love, and a lot of that amorphous, judgment-less,
uncritical, and ultimately meaningless “emotional support” which all too
often passes among women for real love or real respect. And of course
nobody shops, cooks, cleans, earns money, or has any idea of the enormous
and complicated organism that is the modern industrial world, or ever
quarrels, including the children, who always play “quietly and gently” (p.
19). Seldom have traditional female limitations been so painfully insisted
upon in a piece of fiction. Naiad has done neither Young nor us a favor by
printing Retreat. I can’t imagine any positive reaction to the book from any
reader whatever except a sobby-sentimental high followed by an equally
slumpy anger against one’s bedmates, housemates, and workmates for
failing to live up to the book’s saccharine ideality. Young (bemusedly, in
her nightgown) has wandered out in the woods to toast endless, gluey
marshmallows over the same fire that good-humored, shrewd Sally
Gearhart, author of Wanderground3 (in her L. L. Bean boots and down
jacket) is using to heat her can of Trail Mix – supposed to be good for you
but people really like it because it’s full of sweet stuff like raisins and
coconut. I am one of Wanderground’s godmothers and thus entitled to call
Gearhart the Edgar Rice Burroughs of lesbian feminism (thus implying that
she has both the defects and the considerable virtues of the creator of John
3 Sally Gearhart, Wanderground: Stories of the Hill Women, Persephone Press,

Watertown, Mass., 1978.
Carter of Mars), but at least Wanderground has individualized characters

and a sharp sense of the various kinds of hell nature can throw at you
when she’s in the mood.
But who is this on the third side of the fire – this noonday to Gearhart’s
sturdy Eveready flashlight and Young’s druggy candle – this giant who is
using the fire not to ruin our taste buds or distract our desperate minds
with magical impossibilities but to hammer out tools for the future:
ploughshares, hunting knives – and look, there’s even a mold for a telescope
mirror in the center of the ashes!
The Titan with the forge is Motherlines, by Suzy McKee Charnas, a book
that sank like a stone in hardcover publication a year ago (where were you
all! Asleep? On Mars? Oh woe!) and is now out in Berkley paperback with
a cover as unjustly dull as Tee Corinne’s cover for Retreat is unjustly
seductive.4 Charnas knows exactly what her characters eat and wear and
use and what they have to do to get it and what happens to them if they
don’t, and that’s rock-bottom political awareness if any ever existed. From
the East Coast state of Holdfast (after World War Three) in which all women
are the chattel slaves of all men, the runner Alldera escapes, to be rescued
by the Free Amazons, the Riding Women of the plains. There are also the
Free Fems, a community of other escaped slaves, and all Charnas’s people
are unforgettable, from pretty Daya (a “pet fem” until a master skewered
her cheeks with a hot stick) who makes stories and trouble out of the same
imaginative hunger, to wise, wealthy, tongueless Elnoa, boss of the Free
Fems, too fat to leave the wicker wagons the fems pull, endlessly keeping
“her accounts” (as they think) until she tells Daya in sign language – in
one of the book’s most moving scenes – that she is writing history because
the world must never forget what they suffered, to the eccentric loner-
artist Fedaka, healer and cloth-dyer, whose only lover is the Fems’ god,
Moonwoman. Among the parthenogenetic Riding Women are graceful,
black, wise, quarrel-solving Nenisi Conor, who spends half her life in sullen
fury because “My horse-farting teeth hurt!” and loud, crude, red-faced,
dumb Barvaran, whose death is the great grief of the book, and crazy Grays
Omelly who senses the collision of values the Free Fems bring before
anyone else and so stands on one leg within strange rings of objects for
hours “to keep things in their place.”
Charnas doesn’t tell you; she shows you – from the authentic eeriness
of the Moonwoman legends to Alldera’s becoming the reluctant George
Washington of her people, capitulating to others’ logic (“It [the Holdfast]
was built on our backs”), leading sixty armed women back to the Holdfast,
where men may still rule:
4 Suzy McKee Charnas, Motherlines, Berkeley, N.Y., 1979.

REVIEWS 185
“Listen, here’s a story for you:” [says Daya] “we are a small, grim
army drawn up on some high path on the far side of the mountains,
looking out in silence … over our country, green to the horizon line
of the sea…” (p. 251)
And here is the Fems’ bitter “self-song”:
Wash all clean, black sea, roll stones,

Break walls, salt sand, spare none …
We breathed earth all our generations.
We can breathe an ocean of dead men and not care. (p. 233)
Listen, there’s a story for you … A real one.

Read it.
Frontiers, V:3, 1981
Woman’s Creation: Sexual Evolution and the Shaping of Society. Elizabeth Fisher
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980, 504pp., $4.95)
In her introduction Elizabeth Fisher writes of a “visionary” night in which

she suddenly said to herself, “I’ve just rewritten Engels’ Origin of the Family,
Private Property, and the State” (p. xiii), but her clever publisher knew better
than to call the book Engels Supported by a Century of Other People’s Scholarship
and Rebutted by the Addition of Female Sexuality, a Subject With Which He Could
Not Deal, Brilliant Victorian Though He Was, and No Wonder. Not only would
such a title have taken up the space devoted instead to one of the most
visually appalling cover designs I have ever seen, it also would have given
prospective readers some idea of what the book was about, thus enraging
female separatists (“She’s agreeing with a MAN!”), the non-feminist Left
(“She’s a FEMINIST!”), the feminist Left (“We know THAT!”), and the
ordinary public (“A COMMIE WOMEN’S LIBBER, jeez!”). This way nobody
is enraged because nobody is enlightened and most readers have so far dealt
with the problem of another unpleasantly long, vaguely feminist tome by
the serene expedient of not reading it.
When you think that the particular marsh you are stuck in is timeless
(that is, ahistorical), you must look for timeless causes – or at least causes
that have lasted as long as our existence as a species. This is exactly what
Dorothy Dinnerstein does in The Mermaid and the Minotaur. Since her causes
are so ingrained in “human nature” the only possible response is Dinner-
stein’s heroic despair: we’re bound to lose but we’ll go down fighting! An
admirable position, but how much better (and what a relief) to be able to
say with Fisher: Sexism, like a host of other evils, arose at a particular point
in human history (that’s the historical part) in response to the concrete,
material ways in which people lived, that is, how they got their food,
shelter, and so on (and that’s the materialism), not out of some immutable
biological essence imprinted on their genes or (this is Dinnerstein’s version)
pre-hominid social patterns necessarily transferred to a developing human
species, with catastrophic results.
Fisher is a historical materialist. Woman’s Creation is (as far as I know)
the only thoroughly documented theory in existence that puts the origins
of sexism on solidly scholarly ground. Fisher also provides the (to me)
completely convincing evidence that female subjugation, the ownership
of children, land as property, economic class, priesthood, characterological
sadomasochism, war, the king-headed state, the transformation of sex from
pleasure to profit, and slavery – usually of people from different popula-
tions who look different, that is, racism – does not just coincide with the
establishment of civilization; this knot of horrors is civilization.
By contrast, the foraging-hunting life typical of the Paleolithic is
leisurely; longer-lived; well-fed (foragers know their territory, as anthro-
pologists have finally noticed); nonpossessive about children, whom they
enjoy; freely and joyfully sexual, with a loose web of matrocentric
authority; and sexually egalitarian. Furthermore they had some surpris-
ingly effective means of birth control (another recent “discovery” that
confutes earlier views), no private property save in utensils and clothing,
a rich imaginative life, and one very plentiful possession: happiness.
Into the foraging-hunting way of life steps the villain: agriculture.
Agriculture feeds more people per square mile than foraging-hunting, so
once it’s adopted, people gradually become locked into this technological
advance. But agriculture also feeds people worse and demands immense
amounts of gratification-deferring labor while gathering is immediately
rewarding and can include the very immediate reward of eating. Where
labor is valuable and private property possible (you can’t carry land on
your back and settled communities can store other forms of wealth, such
REVIEWS 187
as grain) children become valuable as future laborers and women as child-

producers. Knowledge of impregnation, forced mating, and the castrating
or killing of “unnecessary” male animals, a technology learned from
animal-breeding (not merely animal-keeping), becomes a technology
applicable to people: women and female sexuality are controlled by men
in the service of profit (now that private profit exists), many men are
controlled by few men for the profit of the few (ditto), and access to women
or sexuality becomes a commodity which is then given by privileged men
to less privileged men. The resultant frustration, anger, and displacement
of sexual energy into “sadomasochism”1 makes it even easier to keep people
in their economic place, a place that comes to include slavery: Engels’
“human cattle” (an exact analogy). Fisher traces this slow process as it is
reflected in Sumerian/Akkadian written records both in law and myth. For
example, here is “the birth of the phallarchy” in 2000 B.C., an official myth
in which the mortal king of an Akkadian city-state is about to copulate
with the daughter-goddess Inanna to produce plenty in the land: “With
the exalted rising of the king’s loins rose, at the same time, the flax, rose,
at the same time, the barley …” (p. 288). Much profit and much power
but little pleasure, as Fisher points out. Perhaps a century and a half later
appears a creation myth, in the same area, in which for the first time in
human history the creation of the world occurs neither as birth (the earliest
myths) nor as the result of copulation (the later ones) nor as the gods’
artifactual making of human beings from clay, but as murder, with Marduk
(the god associated with the Babylonian city-king) slaughtering the great
mother-goddess Tiamat and creating the world from her dead body. Human
beings are then fashioned from the blood of her slain consort.
There is much more in Woman’s Creation, only some of which I can touch
on here: Fisher’s documenting the effect of the gun-and-horse technology
on previously peaceful Americans of the nineteenth century – her classic
example is the Comanches, who moved in one generation to a religion
centered on cruelty, chastity, vengeance, and self-mutilation (p. 316) – the
ghost of Engels can be heard applauding in the wings at this point – as well
as her notes that Bronze Age life expectancy was half that of the Paleolithic
or Neolithic (p. 320), that war is only five thousand years old (p. 320), and
that the king-headed state precedes and is the model for the patriarchal
family (p. 299).
Fisher’s book ought to end once and for all the quarrels about which
oppression came first and is therefore most important: they all did. They
are, in fact, identical both in cause and in historical time, and they are
1 Not sexual sadomasochism but plain old cruelty.

furthermore structurally dependent upon each other. Fisher has not so much
added feminism to socialism as put one over the other like transparent
slides and – lo! – the two are one. That is, whatever Leftist and feminist
people may think of one another (and most women’s experience with most
of the Left has been notorious), Marxist and feminist theory can no more
quarrel than the physics of gravitation can quarrel with the physics of
electromagnetism. I am not saying that feminism “needs allies” on the Left
or that the Left ought to add to its body count by professing feminism –
such sucking up has already happened and the kind of reaction it deserves
is hardly speakable in the serene and dignified pages of this journal. What
I do mean is that the women’s movement needs more and better historical
theory. And what a splendid time the last few years has been for feminist
theory! On page 233 of Woman’s Creation the reader can fit in Dorothy
Dinnerstein’s The Mermaid and the Minotaur, on page 303, Mary Daly’s
Gyn/Ecology, on page 323, Janice Raymond’s The Transsexual Empire, on
page 381, Susan Griffin’s Woman and Nature – and Adrienne Rich’s Of
Woman Born almost anywhere after 1000 B.C. Then fit in everything else.
Then look at Fisher’s notes and bibliography and cheer. There she is, in
the center, spinning it all together, like a wise spider.
What good news and what a good book!
“Book World,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981
Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from
the Renaissance to the Present. Lillian Faderman (Morrow, 496pp., $18.95,
Quill paperback, $10.95)
This book is not about lesbians. According to Professor Lillian Faderman’s

quite thorough scholarship, the “Lesbian” did not even exist in Europe
until the 1880s and in the United States until 1910. Not a natural
phenomenon, she was invented by the medical profession to cope with
women’s entry into the professions and higher education and to insure
REVIEWS 189
that female economic independence would not allow women to avoid

marriage. Love between women, which did exist, was unlike Lesbianism
in being socially honored, not secretive, and extremely common, and here
Faderman makes her most ambitious points and may lose some readers.
As late as 1929 a nationwide study of American women chosen as
normal revealed that 50 percent had experienced “intense emotional
relations with other women” while half of this group had experienced such
relations as sexual. Earlier, in Faderman’s words, “it was virtually impos-
sible to study the correspondence of any nineteenth-century woman … of
America … England, France and Germany, and not uncover a passionate
commitment to another woman at some time in her life.”
In short, the inventors of “Lesbianism” saw the bell curve of emotional
and sensual experience as skewed towards one of its ends, the “normal,”
while the other end was declared a separate and “abnormal” phenomenon.
Such an unnatural separation can be – and has been – used to make all
close bonds between women suspect. In connection with the twentieth-
century view that eroticism can be reduced to genital contact, this same
artificial division functions to declare all passionate attachments between
women either trivial (those without a genital element) or criminal (those
with). This modern idea that genitality is the point of division in relation-
ships between women (not a turn-of-the-century criterion, as Faderman
points out) cannot – I think – survive Faderman’s piling up of evidence.
In an age when carnality with anyone was forbidden to ladies there is little
written evidence of genital contact between women (though some exists)
but erotically toned “romances,” “love affairs,” and “marriages” abound.
The creators of Lesbianism got around the ubiquity of such behavior by
declaring that their model Lesbian (who was hysterical, insane, promis-
cuous, congenitally defective, murderous, suicidal, and anatomically
mannish) was the “real” one and all others somehow unreal. (Some
contemporary feminist scholars persist in this confusion, stating that
embraces, kisses, courtships, “losing one’s heart,” and wishing to “marry”
another woman do not make their embarrassingly intimate subjects
“really” Lesbian.)
Surpassing the Love of Men has its faults. The author’s treatment of contem-
porary Lesbian feminism is very weak and at times she seems to say that
sexism and the segregation of the sexes cause love between women, a
confusingly negative view that contradicts her assertion of the normalcy
(statistical and other) of such behavior. Nor does she place her subject in
the context of the bourgeois invention of the family, another social artifact
supposed to be eternal, which was also imposed on the vast majority of
the population of industrialized countries little more than a century ago.
Homosexuality – or rather, acknowledgment of the variety of human
behavior – is a threat to the (compulsory) family. This is no surprise if the

invention of homosexual identity is viewed as a last-ditch defense of “the
family,” which was already being threatened not only by the advent of
feminist protests against it, but also by the necessity of imposing on most
of the population a social artifact designed to insure the well-being of men
of a relatively small owning class. The similarity of the tactics of the Right
wing today and those of the nineteenth-century sexologists is probably not
accidental, since both connect Lesbianism with feminism, invalidate
“Lesbians” as “real” women, and attack “Lesbians” in order to defend “the
family.” The more liberal, then and today, stress that this (now) distinct
minority “can’t help it” – but both insist that homosexuals constitute a
distinct and different group, an assertion that restricts any kind of deviant
behavior to a supposed minority.
Since calling people’s attention to something new is easier than telling
them that something they’ve always believed in was invented with malice
aforethought not very long ago, Lillian Faderman’s book is certainly going
to be controversial. Public policy on sexuality (in such issues as abortion,
sterilization, sexuality, marriage, and the family) is so explosive precisely
because it is located at the junction of the public and the private. That
eternal division (“eternal ever since Wednesday” as Dylan Thomas once
said of the Welsh snows) is beginning to disappear as various thinkers
question elements of “family life”: full-time motherhood, childhood
conceived as crucial and with its own special psychology, the connection
between romantic love and unpaid labor, the timelessness of the family,
and the home as a private sphere distinct from the marketplace and the
workshop, with its “natural” function of providing a haven for emotions
and relations banished from the public world.
Surpassing the Love of Men is an important achievement in this process of
demystifying social institutions. Of direct interest to all women, the book
has implications which affect everyone. Surpassing the Love of Men is an
important document in the use of scientific opinion as a form of social
control and the creation of a social identity via the falsification of history.
Essays
Extrapolation, 11:1, December 1969
Daydream Literature and Science Fiction
David Lindsay, in Voyage to Arcturus. It’s a remarkable thing, because

scientifically it’s nonsense, the style is appalling, and yet this ghastly
vision comes through.1
C. S. Lewis, “C. S. Lewis Discusses Science Fiction with Kingsley
Amis,”S F Horizons (Oxford, Spring 1964), p. 6
In spite of a prose which is occasionally rude and awkward, in spite of

characters which appear and vanish before, in some instances, we
can quite grasp their significance, in spite of a plethora of overdra-
matic names like Maskull and Nightspore, Lindsay has produced a
book which it is difficult if not impossible to lay down …
Loren Eiseley, “Introduction,” A Voyage to Arcturus
(Ballantine Books, 1968), p. vii
In general, Van Vogt seems to me to fail consistently as a writer in

these elementary ways:
1. His plots do not bear examination.
2. His choice of words and his sentence-structure are fumbling
and insensitive.
3. He is unable either to visualise a scene or to make a character
seem real …
The wonder is that, using such unlikely materials and adapting
them without a grain of common sense … the author should have
produced a narrative on the whole so lively and readable. The refer-
ences to atomics in the story [Empire of the Atom] are nonsense from
beginning to end; so are those to strategy and tactics; even the multi-
plication is wrong; and yet Van Vogt’s single-minded power maniacs
exert their usual fascination.
Damon Knight, In Search of Wonder
(Advent Publications, Chicago, 1967), pp. 61–62
All of us who are old enough have used Poe, but none of us has ever
1 All italics in these quotations are mine.

got to be a better writer – a manager of words – by that use… [in

Eliot’s words] … “If we examine his work in detail, we seem to find
in it nothing but slipshod writing, puerile thinking unsupported by
wide reading or profound scholarship, haphazard experiments in
various types of writing … without perfection in any detail.” … [Poe’s]
force works through, not with, the language. At his more ordinary
levels, his force gains nothing and sometimes loses a good deal
because of the language in which he deploys it. The words do not
matter much but what does matter would not be there without them.
R. P. Blackmur, “Afterword,” The Fall of the House of Usher and Other
Tales (New American Library, New York, 1960), p. 375
How often is one asked to applaud the quality of a story in spite of its appalling
style, scientific nonsense, bad structure, unvisualized scenes, unreal
characterization, melodrama, and lack of perfection “in any detail”?
Quite often.
There exists, in science fiction and fantasy literature, a category I would
like to call Daydream Literature; Voyage to Arcturus is this kind of writing,
Poe often falls into it, Van Vogt’s appeal rests largely on it, and the work
of David Redd, a new British writer, also exists mainly as Daydream Liter-
ature.2 I suspect that most adolescent readers who specialize in fantasy of
the adventure/romance type are transforming what they read into
Daydream Literature, although the actual story read may be good in quite
other ways (Tolkien’s trilogy) or may aspire to Daydream Literature and
achieve only cliché (any “Brak the Barbarian” story). One of the symptoms
of the transformation is the insistence on the moral profundity of what is
actually simple and obvious. One young reader of Herbert’s Dune, a student
of mine, insisted the book was really about the profound spiritual differ-
ences between men and women, and I have heard the Tolkien books
praised for the “complexity” of their ethics – an astonishing opinion which
must make George Bernard Shaw spin in his grave. Critics are generally
baffled by writing which is clearly bad, but which (even in them) evokes
some kind of response. (R. P. Blackmur is just as baffled as anyone else;
he expresses his bafflement more elaborately.) They generally conclude
that the book has some power (“mythopoeic power” or “imagination” are
common terms) apart from the specific detail of characters, plot, language,
scenery, situation, et patati et patata.
But if you take away the writing in the book (i.e. the plot, the language,
the scenery, the characters, the diction) what is left?
2 David Redd, “Sundown,” The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (December,
1967); “Sunbeam Caress”, If (March, 1968).
DAYDREAM LITERATURE AND SCIENCE FICTION 195
Nothing.
I propose that Daydream Literature does, in fact, employ a specific
technique of style, a specific technique of form, and in general a whole
body of craft, and that any response the literature evokes is because of this
style and form and not in spite of it. “The Assignation” and The Narrative
of A. Gordon Pym are not simply bad stories. If they were, critics would have
to give up on Poe once and for all.
Still, Daydream Literature is not good literature, for all that.
Specificity – or particularity – is the sine qua non of all literary art. This
particularity may inhere in different elements of fiction; or rather, it may
be created in different ways. (Forgive my being obvious for a few moments.)
The commonest way, I would imagine, is the particularity of events or
objects, often rendered visually:
His wife had heavy black eyebrows.

It wrinkled and was gone.
Specificity inheres in figures of speech:
Zero at the Bone

Lives like loose thread
Or sound:
Unimaginable zero summer

In spring time, in spring time, the only pretty ring time
Or the naive or sophisticated use of the inflections of voice:
Didst thou not share? Hadst thou not fifteen pence?
Or in rhythm:
Here was neither Physician to destroy my Body, nor Lawyer to ruin

my Fortune; No Informer to watch my Words and Actions, or forge
accusations against me for Hire: Here were no Gibers, Censurers,
Backbiters, Pickpockets …
Hickory, dickory dock. The mouse ran up the clock.
Or in syntax and the emphasis of certain words:

After such knowledge, what forgiveness?
Strode from his tent – Ivan!
Him th’ Almighty Power / Hurled headlong flaming from th’ethereal

sky
Or in pacing – a kind of rhythm that uses longer units than the single line
or sentence. Byron is expert at this, as is every good dramatist and novelist.
There are also the specificities of diction, or the switch from one diction
to another (Cummings’ “I sing of Olaf”) and of course the specificities of
character, situation, plot, what is emphasized and what is not, and so forth.
There is no such thing as specificity of mood, since mood is an emanation
of all of the above, not a separate element. Of course no piece of writing
will be a pure embodiment of a simple element, or – probably – less than
all. And I apologize for sloppily belaboring the obvious.
I do it because what is extraordinary about Arcturus, Redd’s work, Van
Vogt’s (in large part) and, say, “The Assignation,” is that all these speci-
ficities are consistently shunned. They are not merely disregarded, for then
the author might hit upon one of them by accident, and this does not
happen. Specificity, particularity – what might just as well be called
concreteness, if the concept is extended to verbal concreteness – is banned
altogether from Daydream Literature.
The most striking examples of this are to be found either in the fine
texture of the work or in the overall structure. I suppose a prose narrative
cannot do entirely without what one might call medium-sized events, but
these are the easiest to fake for the impressionable or naive reader; the
very small and the very large are more betraying. For example, it does not
matter much that the Marchesa Aphrodite or Gordon Pym are not real
characters, or even real figures, but notice, please, that they are not even
clear figures. Nor is the Venice of “The Assignation” in any possible way a
clearly imagined (though fantastic) city. As for the rhythm, Poe is famous
for his ondulation chez Edgar3 and one of the most striking features of the
other stories I have mentioned is the monotony of the rhythm. Arcturus is
an endless parade of medium-length declarative sentences varied by
medium-length interrogative sentences. David Redd (whose prose is not
nearly so wretched) goes in for an incredible flatness and evenness of tone
and pacing, difficult to demonstrate without introducing lengthy excerpts
3 “Permanent wave at Edgar’s place” (I forget who said this).

from his work. But here is one of the high points of “Sunbeam Caress,”
the reappearance of a woman killed early in the story:
A swift mental probe at maximum sensitivity revealed no trace of her

thoughts. That, and her curious shuffling tread, showed that she was
dead. The Racemind could not regard this as certain because it had
not recorded her death impulses, but there was little possibility of
error.4
Neither David Lindsay nor David Redd has a real voice, and Poe’s voice is
often forced to the point of unreality. (“Illfated and mysterious man! bewil-
dered in the brilliancy of thine own imagination” etc.) The sound follows
suit. And figures of speech – when they occur – are extremely simple. In
Arcturus, music issues “as from an unearthly orchestra” (p. 153), and “The
huge stone hurtled through the air. Its flight looked like a dark shadow”
(p. 147). There are two similes in “Sundown” (that I can find), one of which
compares a lady to a column. In “Sunbeam Caress” complexes of cells are
described as “resembling masses of sponge rubber or soap foam” (p. 18);
there are “purple crags like fangs” (p. 20); crystals dart “like fish” (p. 27);
a crystal watches some plants “like a benevolent child-guardian” (p. 15).
There are about a dozen metaphors or similes in forty pages. The most
evocative – and one that makes me suspect that Redd may become a writer
in spite of himself5 – is the following: “giving her the impression she was
flying over a forest of living rocks that were breathing slowly in the hot
sun” (p. 13). These are not – as Poe’s figures of speech or comparisons are
not – bad or stale or even silly, but there seems to be a maximum of
complexity that is set very low by the author, as if allowing any more
complicated ideas into his metaphors or similes would do violence to the
story.
The syntax is invariably flat and simple – whatever the length of the
sentences – flaccid after a while in Arcturus, over-rotund in Poe, and
exasperatingly pedantic in Redd.
There is almost no use of sound (l’ondulation again).
The pacing is abominable. This elusive virtue is apparently one the
Daydream story-teller does not want to use. I cannot, short of including
whole chapters, give any impression of the trudging regularity of the events
4 “Sunbeam Caress,” p. 32.

5 That is, a writer of other than Daydream Literature. His latest story for Fantasy
and Science Fiction, “A Quiet Kind of Madness” (May, 1968) suggests that he has
trouble with anything but description, and that this difficulty led him into
starting his career with Daydream Literature.
in Arcturus or the grinding pedantry with which marvels and wonders are
systematically reduced to diagrams in Redd’s stories. Things are not meant
to build to climaxes. Readers of Pym will recognize the same principle at
work, though Poe is not nearly so bald about it and manages some variety.
But the lack of drama is still absolute; this may be what made Henry James
speak of the “would-be portentous climax … where the indispensable
history is absent … There are no connections.”6
To be brief, nothing develops from anything; nothing generates
anything; the stories are entirely episodic, with consistent and apparently
deliberate avoidance of emphasis, complexity, or change. The principle of
structure is repetition. The intensively recomplicated plot of a book like
Slan is – paradoxically – just as anti-dramatic. By constantly changing the
direction of the plot, Van Vogt defeats any effort to make sense out of it,
or any possibility that events may reasonably lead to other events.
Furthermore, the situations presented in Van Vogt’s 800-word scenes7 are
not developed but only revealed. The general rule is one event per scene,
and the result is essentially a series of tableaux, not very different from the
unvarying regularity of presentation of events in Arcturus.
Repetition.
No voice or a forced voice.
Simple figures of speech.
Evenness of pacing.
Thin characters.
Flat sentences, little variety of use of syntax.
No playing with sound, or mechanical sound.
What remains?
For one thing, a corresponding lack of visualization. The reader of
Arcturus will note that although the scene is an alien planet, it is extremely
difficult to remember what the planet looks like. This is, to put it quite
bluntly, because David Lindsay does not know what it looks like, nor can
Poe see the strange places of Pym or Venice, or the rooms and corridors of
the House of Usher – I will not say as well as one can see one’s own
bathroom, but as well as Lovecraft (who is certainly given to mad, purple
bombinations) can see a farm kitchen or an old house. Turning again to
Arcturus, here is an example at random:
Without losing time, Panawe led the way up the mountainside. The
lower half was of bare rock, not difficult to climb. Halfway up,
6 Cited by Blackmur, The Fall of the House of Usher, p. 382.

7 A. E. Van Vogt, “Complication in the Science Fiction Story,” Of Worlds Beyond,
L. A. Eshbach ed., Advent Publications, Chicago, 1964, p. 54.
however, it grew steeper, and they began to meet bushes and small
trees. The growth became thicker as they continued to ascend, and
when they neared the summit, tall forest trees appeared.
These bushes and trees had pale, glassy trunks and branches, but
the small twigs and the leaves were translucent and crystal. They cast
no shadow from above, but still the shade was cool. Both leaves and
branches were fantastically shaped. What surprised Maskull the
most, however, was the fact that, as far as he could see, scarcely any
two plants belonged to the same species. (p. 64)
Moreover, most of the really important things in Arcturus are of two colors
that are not describable in human terms. This is unseeing with a vengeance.
I would also invite readers of Poe’s stories to draw maps of, or describe, or
remember, or in any sense visualize the Bridge of Sighs in “The Assig-
nation” or that cliff from which Pym falls. Even the “black” water in Pym
is schematically black rather than sensuously black. And Redd, although
he has a good pair of eyes, is capable of the following:
The circular central area, which Rrengyara had seen in the process of
formation, was about four feet in diameter. The thirteen paths,
curving from the center of the pattern out to the circumference, were
each two feet wide and about nine feet long. The region where they
overlapped enlarged the central area.
The huge colorless crystals were no longer at the outer rim of the
circular pattern. Twelve of them were positioned at regular intervals
along the grooved pathways leading to the center, and the thirteenth
crystal was actually at the center. The twelve on the pathways were
arranged in lines of four; in each group the innermost crystal was
close to the center, the outermost was near the perimeter, and the
two others occupied intermediate positions on their respective
grooves. Each pathway was occupied by one crystal, except for the
thirteenth which was empty. (“Sunbeam Caress”, p. 23)
The persons in Lindsay’s romance, although described in highly emotional

terms (“wild, powerful, and exceedingly handsome”, p. 81) or
picturesquely (“She was clothed in a single, flowing, pale green garment,
rather classically draped … she was not beautiful … Her skin … was
opalescent … She had very long, loosely plaited flaxen hair”, p. 46) do not
exactly linger in the mind. One might expect not to be able to visualize
Emma Bovary down to the last freckle, but these persons, who grow
tentacles, extra eyes, and all sorts of strange organs apparently at will,
certainly ought to be clearer to the eye than they are. Poe’s heroines – much
more elegantly – are famous for being compounded from a few stylized
pictorial traits, among which large, brilliant, black eyes figure with
somewhat tiresome regularity.
Without definition, an object loses itself in the region of the indeter-
minate. Why then do these stories possess any concrete existence at all?
Let me repeat that the lack of concreteness I have been sketching is not
at all the same thing as the use of stereotypes or clichés. Both stereotypes
and clichés are concrete – all too concrete – and what Daydream Literature
seems to want to attain is not a state of specificity-gone-sour or specificity-
overused, but no specificity at all. This is not easy. The particularity of both
Arcturus and Redd’s two works (although “Sunbeam Caress” does attain
to a certain exoticism in some of its concrete descriptions) resides in two
things: the names of people and places, and what I would like to call
“notions”: e.g. a country where sexual love is pain, the unsuitability of the
hero’s blood for Arcturus and the heroine’s replacing it with her own by
putting their arms together, two suns that affect the hero in spiritually
contradictory ways, and so forth. I call these “notions” because they are
not explained, elaborated on, or even described; they are merely noted
down and followed by other notions. It is hard to believe, for example,
that extra eyes and tentacles could be dull, but the unseeing applies here,
too. Lindsay is not interested in what such things would really be like, or
look like, or how they would affect a man of ordinary sensibility, or how
they would feel. He takes them for granted. David Redd, similarly, packs
centuries of history into the forty pages of “Sunbeam Caress” and offers
all sorts of mentioned-but-not-realized poeticisms in “Sundown” – ”slow
time,” telepathy as a feature of journeying together, giants paralyzed by
sunlight, and so on.8 Poe, who does indeed elaborate his notions, keeps
them from clear realization by stereotyping and simplifying, and by over-
describing them in language so feverish and so general that no more than
Lindsay’s can his nightmares enter the daylight world. Compare the
entrance of Madeline Usher fresh from her coffin with Dracula’s forcing
the heroine to drink his blood in Bram Stoker’s novel; the latter is melodra-
matic and silly, but it’s all there, not dissolved in a mist of strange, twangling
instruments, nerves, feverishness, and overblown rhetoric. Poe, I might
add, often elaborates upon his notions schematically and mechanically –
witness the black vegetation in Pym and the word “Tek-e-lili,” about which
Henry James complained. It pops up all over the place, not because this
will lead to some discovery about the word, but simply because it is more
8 These are a good deal more evocative than Lindsay’s notions, possibly because
they are not original with Redd; to use them at all, he has to give them at least
some elaboration or verbal, poetic realization.
horrible that way. Heroes of Daydream Novels, by the way, may be horrified
(Poe’s heroes are generally far more horrified than the adult reader) but
they are never surprised at anything.
James Blish’s comment about Van Vogt is apposite here:
A writer like Van Vogt, for example, never really comes to grips with
an idea, but just piles another one on top of it.9
The second concrete element in Daydream Literature is the names.

Lindsay’s names are brilliant. In their suggestiveness, their wit, their
collapsing of many references and metaphors into one word, they gather
into themselves the particularity so lacking in the rest of the book. It is
through the ritualistic naming of things and people that Lindsay, Redd,
Poe (at times) and even Van Vogt establish the reality of their worlds:10
Maskull, Nightspore, Crystalman, Joiwind, Blodsombre, Alppain, Branch-
spell, jale, ulfire, Sullenbode (a special success), Lady Rowena Trevanion
of Tremaine, Weir. And, of course, Usher itself. Poe is writer enough to
extend the wild and thrilling naming to adjectives and sometimes the choice
of common nouns, yet he is hardly alone in this. (When does a pond become
a “tarn”?)
In general, “Sundown” sticks to established words like troll, oreade,
gnome, sprite, The White Lady, Living Rock, and North Polar Continent.
In “Sunbeam Caress”: fireballs, glitterbells, the Bright Ways, sunbursts,
rock hags, cave crystals, melters, streamerhags, wandercacti, zombie-
snakes, cracklebushes, Rrengyara, titanomoles, gelatinous slumberers,
struthominai.
If naming were doing, beggars would be kings.
I hope that by now it has become clear what the aesthetic and dramatic
principles of Literature are. They are exclusion and unseeing. They are the
principles of daydream: structureless, repetitive, either vague or schematic,
undeveloped, ritualistically naming. For the Marchesa Aphrodite to be
called the Marchesa Aphrodite is almost enough for Poe; stand her next to
something called The Bridge of Sighs, and it is enough. Simply naming the
strange organs grown by Arcturans (the poign, the sorb) is quite enough
for Lindsay. Reality must be constantly kept out of these constructions,
and to this end nothing concrete – not dramatic tension, or clear scene, or
developed feeling – can be allowed to intrude. A breath of air and the story
crumbles.
9 James Blish (William Atheling, Jr.), The Issue at Hand, Advent Publications,
Chicago, 1964, p. 38.
10 E.g. the climax of Slan. Tentacle-less Slans are really “tentacle-less Slans”. Well!
Real dreams are not at all like daydreams; they are witty, poetic,
poignant, forceful, sometimes painfully vivid, often extremely clear, and
they cover the whole range of human feeling. Just like art.
It is true that Daydream Literature has an effect, for it does exist; there
is an irreducible minimum of actuality that must be put on paper or there
will be no story at all. This minimum of reality, as it excludes the
concreteness of good writing, must also exclude the concreteness of bad
writing. The Daydream Writer must perform a difficult balancing act,
neither perpetrating bad literature nor risking the dissolution of his
daydream-world through good literature.
Daydream Literature is, in fact, anti-literary, and successes in it are few,
if one may speak of success in a mode which is dead-set against any kind
of art and which attempts to exclude as much of reality as possible. The
formula writer uses pieces of concrete actuality to anesthetize the reader
to the possibility of other pieces of concrete actuality. (It’s true that some
cops are Irish and are named O’Reilly, though if you use only Irish cops
called O’Reilly, you thereby exclude the perception of the possibility that
a cop might be a Jew called Feinbaum.) Possibly the formula writer, in
repeating a public daydream, works with sturdier stuff than the Daydream
Writer does; if the daydream is public, we all share it or at least give it
limited credence. The formula writer can tolerate – even encourage –
solidity, daylight, real feeling, people, events, even limited thought. The
Daydream Writer cannot.
Ibsen said that “to be a poet is chiefly to see”11 and Conrad wished “above
all to make you see,” but the Daydream Writer must, above all, prevent
you from seeing. Lulled to sleep by the non-sentences (or as close as prose
can get to them), pursuing the non-plots that involve non-characters who
are only evocative names, distracted neither by the sound of real voices
nor the shock of real perceptions, persuaded of the profundities of non-
feelings and non-thoughts, it is possible to get to daydreaming all by
yourself without shutting the book. It is one’s own daydreams that provide
the mythopoeic power, the “ghastly vision” of C. S. Lewis, the fascination,
the glimpse of something that disappears every time one tries to look
straight at it, the sense of “extremity and the sense of mystery” that
Blackmur talks about. And as he also says, “It is the particularity the reader
brings that fills out the form … the authority is ours – almost the
authorship.”12 What I have called “notions” are only the barest of pedagogic
hints, to daydream more extensively and exotically than one could
unassisted. That is why the hints must remain only hints – only single
11 Cited by Eric Bentley, In Search of Theatre, Vintage Books, New York, 1957, p. 228.
12 Blackmur, The Fall of the House of Usher, p. 379.
notions – never to be dramatically or poetically elaborated. Daydream Liter-

ature requires a lot of imagination – in the reader.
In fact, the Daydream Story bears an astonishing resemblance to porn-
ography. One might call it the pornography of poetry. Just as there is a
pornography of adventure (endless examples!) and one of tears (we call it
“sentimentality”) and one of love and domesticity (generally called “trash”)
so there is a pornography of poetry. There is probably a pornography of
everything. Pornography is the attempt to bypass the medium and turn a
work of art into vicarious experience – to arouse emotion or appetite
directly without the inevitable alloy of reflection given by art and without
any of the embarrassments of thought or the mixedness of real experience.
In The Other Victorians Steven Marcus states that the pornography of sex is
forced to exclude so much reality that eventually genuine eroticism is
thrown out, too, and pornography itself becomes anti-erotic. Daydream
Literature, no matter how skillful, is anti-poetic and anti-philosophic. Ideas,
too, must be kept unrealized, lest the lotus-trance be disturbed, and
emotions are all the better if you can’t recognize them or pin them down.
Daydream Literature inevitably falls into bathos and silliness; no Daydream
Writer succeeds; he is forced to be self-contradictory. Writing that is not
good is bad; characters that are not realized are bores; ideas that are incon-
ceivable are inconceivable.
“You may be the stronger, but he is the mightier,” says Maskull to Krag
of Crystalman.13
Daydream Literature may be initially delicious, but there comes a time
when – wish how one may – Daydream Stories, like the statement quoted
above, become absurd and exasperating. To anyone with a feeling for
language or dramatic construction, they are torture.
Adolescents, foreseeing a vague and glorious personal future which
unaccountably has no connection with the real, dull present, turn to this
stuff and find in it the exaltation and the sense of emotional and moral
profundity – Blackmur’s “mystery” and “extremity” (which he also ascribes
to “permanent adolescents”14) – that such books seem to offer. Often
adolescents make perfectly decent literature into Daydream Literature:
witness the Tolkien cult, the cult of Stranger in a Strange Land, and the recent
enshrinement of Magister Ludi. With time, the powerful emotions
associated with the vague and glorious realm of the vague and glorious
future begin, oddly enough, to “leak” into real life. They are not at all what
one thought they’d be when they were still part of Cloud Cuckooland, but
as they fix themselves in real things, real acts, and real people, the many-
13 Lindsay, Arcturus, after 286 mortal pages!

14 Blackmur, The Fall of the House of Usher, p. 379.
colored realm of escape slowly fades. One day you find that Dream Liter-
ature has turned into vile and exasperating slush, for it never dates (as bad
literature does) and therefore never becomes an object of amusement or
nostalgia. The emotion that once filled the pages has evaporated as if
through the very covers of the book, for it was never fixed in words, and
you try in vain to read between the lines, as you once did.
There was never anything there.
AFTERWORD
This article began after I had read four terms’ worth of student writing and
tried in vain to find a word that described its peculiar badness. The word
is “schematic” and it is the key to Daydream Literature, too. Most student
writing is either schematic or clichéd – in the latter case because the writer
is inexperienced and in the former because the elementary transition from
daydream to art has not taken place. That is what is wrong with Daydream
Literature. Our own daydreams seem to us so vivid and colorful that only
after extensive experience of other people’s daydreams do we realize how
thin and schematic all daydreams – including our own – are. It is the
ineffable and inexpressible that makes daydreaming so exciting; but art
must express the inexpressible or cease to exist.
Someone will object here that all art is vicarious experience and that
there is no distinction between art and daydreaming; i.e. no artistic
medium.
He is wrong.
Red Clay Reader, No. 7, November 1970
The Image of Women in Science Fiction
Science fiction is What If literature. All sorts of definitions have been

proposed by people in the field, but they all contain both The What If and
The Serious Explanation; that is, science fiction shows things not as they
characteristically or habitually are but as they might be, and for this “might
be” the author must offer a rational, serious, consistent explanation, one
that does not (in Samuel Delany’s phrase) offend against what is known
to be known.1 Science fiction writers can’t be experts in all disciplines, but
they ought at least to be up to the level of the New York Times Sunday
science page. If the author offers marvels and does not explain them, or if
he explains them playfully and not seriously, or if the explanation offends
against what the author knows to be true, you are dealing with fantasy
and not science fiction. True, the fields tend to blur into each other and
the borderland is a pleasant and gleeful place, but generally you can tell
where you are. Examples:
J. R. R. Tolkien writes fantasy. He offends against all sorts of archaeo-
logical, geological, paleontological, and linguistic evidence which he
undoubtedly knows as well as anyone else does.
Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote science fiction. He explained his marvels
seriously and he explained them as well as he could. At the time he wrote,
his stories did in fact conflict with what was known to be known, but he
didn’t know that. He wrote bad science fiction.
Ray Bradbury writes both science fiction and fantasy, often in the same
story. He doesn’t seem to care.
Science fiction comprises a grand variety of common properties: the
fourth dimension, hyperspace (whatever that is), the colonization of other
worlds, nuclear catastrophe, time travel (now out of fashion), interstellar
exploration, mutated supermen, alien races, and so on. The sciences treated
range from the “hard” or exact sciences (astronomy, physics) through the
life sciences (biology, biochemistry, neurology) through the “soft” or
inexact sciences (ethology, ecology) to disciplines that are still in the
descriptive or philosophical stage and may never become exact (history,
1 In conversation and in his discussion of “Speculative Fiction” given at the MLA

Seminar on Science Fiction in New York City, December 27, 1968.
for example).2 I would go beyond these last to include what some writers
call “para-sciences” – extra-sensory perception, psionics, or even magic –
as long as the “discipline” in question is treated as it would have to be if it
were real, that is rigorously, logically, and in detail.3
Fantasy, says Samuel Delany, treats what cannot happen, science fiction
what has not happened.4 One would think science fiction the perfect
literary mode in which to explore (and explode) our assumptions about
“innate” values and “natural” social arrangements, in short our ideas about
Human Nature, Which Never Changes. Some of this has been done. But
speculation about the innate personality differences between men and
women, about family structure, about sex, in short about gender roles,
hardly exists. And why not?
What is the image of women in science fiction?
We can begin by dismissing fiction set in the very near future (such as
On the Beach) for most science fiction is not like this; most science fiction
is set far in the future, some of it very far in the future, hundreds of thousands
of years sometimes. One would think that by then human society, family
life, personal relations, child-rearing, in fact anything one can name, would
have altered beyond recognition. This is not the case. The more intelligent,
literate fiction carries today’s values and standards into its future Galactic
Empires. What may politely be called the less sophisticated fiction returns
to the past – not even a real past, in most cases, but an idealized and
exaggerated past.5
Intergalactic Suburbia
In general, the authors who write reasonably sophisticated and literate

science fiction (Clarke, Asimov, for choice) see the relations between the
sexes as those of present-day, white, middle-class suburbia. Mummy and
Daddy may live inside a huge amoeba and Daddy’s job may be to test
2 Basil Davenport, Inquiry Into Science Fiction, Longmans, Green and Co., New York,
London, Toronto, 1955, pp. 39ff.
3 A recent novel by James Blish, Black Easter, published by Doubleday, Garden
City, N.Y. in 1968, does exactly this. See in particular the Introduction, pp. 7–8.
4 Samuel Delany, “About Five Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Five Words,”
in Extrapolation: the Newsletter of the Conference on Science Fiction of the MLA, ed.
Thomas D. Clareson, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, Vol. X, No. 2, May
1969, pp. 61–63.
5 There have been exceptions, e.g. Olaf Stapledon, George Bernard Shaw. And
of course Philip Wylie’s The Disappearance. Wylie’s novel really ranks as a near-
future story, though.
THE IMAGE OF WOMEN IN SCIENCE FICTION 207
psychedelic drugs or cultivate yeast-vats, but the world inside their heads
is the world of Westport and Rahway and that world is never questioned. Not
that the authors are obvious about it; Fred Pohl’s recent satire, The Age of
the Pussyfoot, is a good case in point.6 In this witty and imaginative future
world, death is reversible, production is completely automated, the world
population is enormous, robots do most of the repetitive work, the pharma-
copoeia of psychoactive drugs is very, very large, and society has become
so complicated that people must carry personal computers to make their
everyday decisions for them. I haven’t even mentioned the change in
people’s clothing, in their jobs, their slang, their hobbies, and so on. But it
you look more closely at this weird world you find that it practices a laissez-
faire capitalism, one even freer than our own; that men make more money
than women; that men have the better jobs (the book’s heroine is the
equivalent of a consumer-research guinea pig); and that children are raised
at home by their mothers.
In short, the American middle class with a little window dressing.
In science fiction, speculation about social institutions and individual
psychology has always lagged far behind speculation about technology,
possibly because technology is easier to understand than people. But this
is not the whole story.7 I have been talking about intelligent, literate science
fiction. Concerning this sort of work one might simply speak of a failure
of imagination outside the exact sciences, but there are other kinds of
science fiction, and when you look at them, something turns up that makes
you wonder if failure of imagination is what is at fault.
I ought to make it clear here that American science fiction and British
science fiction have evolved very differently and that what I am going to
talk about is – in origin – an American phenomenon. In Britain science
fiction not only was always respectable, it still is, and there is a continuity
in the field that the American tradition does not have. British fiction is not,
on the whole, better written than American science fiction but it continues
to attract first-rate writers from outside the field (Kipling, Shaw, C. S. Lewis,
Orwell, Golding) and it continues to be reviewed seriously and well.8
6 Frederik Pohl, The Age of the Pussyfoot, Trident Press, New York, 1968.
7 I don’t want to adduce further examples, but most well-known science fiction
is of this kind. It suffices to read Childhood’s End for example (Arthur C. Clarke),
and ask about the Utopian society of the middle: What do the men do? What
do the women do? Who raises the children? And so on.
8 See William Atheling, Jr. (James Blish), The Issue at Hand, Advent Press, Chicago,
1964, pp. 117–19. I ought to make it clear that I am talking here of science
fiction as a literary/cultural phenomenon, e.g., nobody can accuse George
Bernard Shaw of suffering from the he-man ethos. But Shaw’s ventures into
science fiction have had little influence on the American tradition.
American science fiction developed out of the pulps and stayed outside the
tradition of serious literature for at least three decades; it is still not really
respectable.9 American science fiction originated in the adventure-story-
cum-fairy-tale which most people think of (erroneously) as “science
fiction.” It has been called a great many things, most of them uncompli-
mentary, but the usual name is “space opera”. There are good writers
working in this field who do not deserve the public notoriety bred by this
kind of science fiction. But their values usually belong to the same imagi-
native world and they participate in many of the same assumptions.10 I will
not, therefore, name names, but will pick on something inoffensive – think
of Flash Gordon and read on.
Down Among the He-Men
If most literate science fiction takes for its gender-role models the ones
which actually exist (or are assumed as ideals) in middle-class America,
space opera returns to the past for its models, and not even the real past,
but an idealized and simplified one. These stories are not realistic. They are
primitive, sometimes bizarre, and often magnificently bald in their fantasy.
Some common themes:
A feudal economic and social structure – usually paired with advanced
technology and inadequate to the complexities of a seventh-century
European mud hut.
Women are important as prizes or motives – i.e. we must rescue the heroine
or win the hand of the beautiful Princess. Many fairy-tale motifs turn up
here.
Active or ambitious women are evil – this literature is chockfull of cruel
dowager empresses, sadistic matriarchs, evil ladies maddened by jealousy,
domineering villainesses, and so on.
Women are supernaturally beautiful – all of them.
Women are weak and/or kept off stage – this genre is full of scientists’
beautiful daughters who know just enough to be brought along by Daddy
as his research assistant, but not enough to be of any help to anyone.
9 The American pioneer was Hugo Gernsback, whose name adorns the “Hugo,”
the yearly fan awards for best novel of the year, best short story, etc. In 1908
Gernsback founded a magazine called Modern Electrics, the world’s first radio
magazine. In 1911 he published a serial of his own writing called “Ralph
124C41+”. Gernsback founded Amazing Stories in 1926 and by common consent,
real science entered the field with John W. Campbell, Jr., in the late 1930s.
10 Some of the better writers in this genre are Keith Laumer, Gordon Dickson, and
Poul Anderson. Most magazine fiction is at least tainted with space opera.
Women’s powers are passive and involuntary – an odd idea that turns up
again and again, not only in space opera. If female characters are given
abilities, these are often innate abilities which cannot be developed or
controlled, e.g. clairvoyance, telepathy, hysterical strength, unconscious
psi power, eidetic memory, perfect pitch, lightning calculation, or (more
baldly) magic. The power is somehow in the woman, but she does not
really possess it. Often realistic science fiction employs the same device.11
The real focus of interest is not on women at all – but on the cosmic rivalries
between strong, rugged, virile he-men. It is no accident that space opera
and horse opera bear similar names.12 Most of the readers of science fiction
are male and most of them are young; people seem to quit reading the stuff
in their middle twenties and the hard-core readers who form fan clubs and
go to conventions are even younger and even more likely to be male.13
Such readers as I have met (the addicts?) are overwhelmingly likely to be
nervous, shy, pleasant boys, sensitive, intelligent, and very awkward with
people. They also talk too much. It does not take a clairvoyant to see why
such people would be attracted to space opera, with its absence of real
women and its tremendous over-rating of the “real he-man.” In the March
1969 issue of Amazing one James Koval wrote to the editor as follows:14
Your October issue was superb; better than that, it was uniquely
original … Why do I think it so worthy of such compliments? Because
of the short stories Conqueror and Mu Panther, mainly. They were, in
every visual and emotional sense, stories about real men whose
rugged actions and keen thinking bring back a genuine feeling of
masculinity, a thing sorely missed by the long-haired and soft-eyed
generation of my time, of which I am a part … aiming entertainment
at the virile and imaginative male of today is the best kind of business
… I sincerely hope you keep your man-versus-animal type format
going, especially with stories like Mu Panther. That was exceptionally
unique.
The editor’s response was “GROAN!”
11 In Age of the Pussyfoot the heroine makes her living by trying out consumer
products. She is so ordinary (or statistically extraordinary) that if she likes the
products, the majority of the world’s consumers will also like them. A prominent
character in John Brunner’s recent novel, Stand on Zanzibar, is a clairvoyant.
12 Also “soap opera” – the roles of the sexes are reversed.
13 I would put the ratio of male to female readers at about five to one. It might
very well be higher.
14 I think March and I think it was Amazing; it is either Amazing or Worlds of If for
1968 or 1969. Sorry!
But even if readers are adolescents, the writers are not. I know quite a
few grown-up men who should know better, but who nonetheless fall into
what I would like to call the he-man ethic. And they do it over and over
again. In November 1968, a speaker at the Philadelphia Science Fiction
Convention15 described the heroes such writers create:
The only real He-Man is Master of the Universe … The real He-Man
is invulnerable. He has no weaknesses. Sexually he is super-potent.
He does exactly what he pleases, everywhere and at all times. He is
absolutely self-sufficient. He depends on nobody, for this would be
a weakness. Toward women he is possessive, protective, and patron-
izing; to men he gives orders. He is never frightened by anything or
for any reason; he is never indecisive and he always wins.
In short, masculinity equals power and femininity equals powerlessness.

This is a cultural stereotype that can be found in much popular literature,
but science fiction writers have no business employing stereotypes, let
alone swallowing them goggle-eyed.
Equal Is as Equal Does
In the last decade or so, science fiction has begun to attempt the serious
presentation of men and women as equals, usually by showing them at
work together. Even a popular television show like Star Trek shows a
spaceship with a mixed crew; fifteen years ago this was unthinkable.16
Forbidden Planet, a witty and charming film made in the 1950s, takes it for
granted that the crew of a spaceship will all be red-blooded, crew-cut,
woman-hungry men, rather like the cast of South Pacific before the nurses
arrive. And within the memory of living adolescent, John W. Campbell,
Jr., the editor of Analog, proposed that “nice girls” be sent on spaceships as
prostitutes because married women would only clutter everything up with
washing and babies. But Campbell is a coelacanth.
At any rate, many recent stories do show a two-sexed world in which
women as well as men work competently and well. But this is a reflection
of present reality, not genuine speculation. And what is most striking about
these stories is what they leave out: the characters’ personal and erotic
relations are not described; child-rearing arrangements (to my knowledge)
15 Me.
16 It is noteworthy, however, that the ladies of the crew spend their time as nurses,
stewardesses and telephone operators.
are never described; and the women who appear in these stories are either
young and childless or middle-aged, with their children safely grown up.
That is, the real problems of a society without gender-role differentiation
are not faced. It is my impression that most of these stories are colorless
and schematic; the authors want to be progressive, God bless them, but
they don’t know how. Exceptions:
Mack Reynolds, who also presents a version of future socialism called
“the Ultra-Welfare State.” (Is there a connection?) He has written novels
about two-sexed societies of which one is a kind of mild gynocracy. He
does not describe child-rearing arrangements, though.
Samuel Delany, who often depicts group marriages and communal
child-rearing, “triplet” marriages (not polygamy or polyandry, for each
person is understood to have sexual relations with the other two) und so
weiter, all with no differentiation of gender roles, all with an affectionate,
East Village, Berkeley-Bohemian air to them, and all with the advanced
technology that would make such things work. His people have the rare
virtue of fitting the institutions under which they live. Robert Heinlein,
who also goes in for odd arrangements (e.g the “line marriage” in The Moon
Is a Harsh Mistress in which everybody is married to everybody, but there
are seniority rights in sex), peoples his different societies with individual-
istic, possessive, competitive, pre-World War II Americans – just the people
who could not live under the cooperative or communal arrangements he
describes. Heinlein, for all his virtues, seems to me to exemplify science
fiction’s failure of imagination in the human sphere. He is superb at work
but out of his element elsewhere. Stranger in a Strange Land seems to me a
particular failure. I have heard Heinlein’s women called “boy scouts with
breasts” – but the subject takes more discussion than I can give it here.
Alexei Panshin’s critical study, Heinlein in Dimension, undertakes a thorough
investigation of Heinlein vs. Sex. Heinlein loses.17
Matriarchy
The strangest and most fascinating oddities in science fiction occur not in
the stories that try to abolish differences in gender roles but in those which
attempt to reverse the roles themselves. Unfortunately, only a handful of
writers have treated this theme seriously. Space opera abounds, but in
space opera the reversal is always cut to the same pattern.
17 See Alexei Panshin’s Heinlein in Dimension, Advent Press, Chicago, 1968,

especially Chapter VI.
Into a world of cold, cruel, domineering women who are openly

contemptuous of their cringing, servile men (“gutless” is a favorite word
here) arrive(s) men (a man) from our present world. With a minimum of
trouble, these normal men succeed in overthrowing the matriarchy, which
although strong and warlike, is also completely inefficient. At this point
the now dominant men experience a joyful return of victorious manhood
and the women (after initial reluctance) declare that they too are much
happier. Everything is (to quote S. J. Perelman) leeches and cream.18 Two
interesting themes occur:
(1) the women are far more vicious, sadistic, and openly contemptuous of
men than comparable dominant men are of comparable subordinate
women in the usual space opera.
(2) the women are dominant because they are taller and stronger than
the men (!).
Sometimes the story is played out among the members of an alien species
modeled on insects or microscopic sea-creatures, so that tiny males are
eaten or engulfed by huge females. I remember one in which a tiny male
was eaten by a female who was not only forty feet tall but maddened to
boot.19 There are times when science fiction leaves the domain of literature
altogether. Least said, soonest mended.
I remember three British accounts of future matriarchies that could be
called serious studies. In one the matriarchy is incidental. The society is
presented as good because it embodies the traditionally feminine virtues
of serenity, tolerance, love, and pacifism.20 In John Wyndham’s “Consider
Her Ways” there are no men at all; the society is a static, hierarchical one
which (like the first) is good because of its traditionally feminine virtues,
which are taken as innate in the female character. There is something about
matriarchy that makes science fiction writers think of two things: biological
18 Entertaining use can be made of this form. Keith Laumer’s delightfully tongue-
in-cheek “The War With the Yukks” is a case in point. You will now complain
that I don’t tell you where to find it, but trying to find uncollected stories or
novellas is a dreadful task. I don’t know where it is. I read it in a magazine publi-
cation; magazines vanish.
19 Again, vanished without a trace. It’s an oldie and I suspect it appeared in one
of Groff Conklin’s fat anthologies of The Best S.F. for (fill in year). It was a lovely
story.
20 This one may be American. A Russian (or American) and a Red Chinese, both
from our present, are somehow transported into the future. They kill each other
at a party in a xenophobic rage which their hostesses find tragic and obsolete.
I remember that the ladies in the story shave their heads (that is, the ladies’
own heads). Not exactly a matriarchy but a semi-reversal of gender roles occurs
in Philip Wylie’s The Disappearance, a brilliant argument to the effect that gender
roles are learned and can be unlearned.
engineering and social insects; whether women are considered naturally

chitinous or the softness of the female body is equated with the softness
of the “soft” sciences I don’t know, but the point is often made that “women
are conservative by nature” and from there it seems an easy jump to bees
or ants. Science fiction stories often make the point that a matriarchy will
be static and hierarchical, like Byzantium or Egypt. (It should be remem-
bered here that the absolute value of progress is one of the commonest
shibboleths of science fiction.) The third story I remember – technically it’s
a “post-Bomb” story – was written by an author whose version of matri-
archy sounds like Robert Graves’s.21 The story makes the explicit point that
while what is needed is static endurance, the Mother rules; when explo-
ration and initiative again become necessary, the Father will return. The
Great Mother is a real, supernatural character in this tale and the people
in it are very real people. The matriarchy – again, the women rule by super-
natural knowledge – is vividly realized and there is genuine exploration of
what personal relations would be like in such a society. There is a kind of
uncompromising horror (the hero is hunted by “the hounds of the Mother”
– women whose minds have been taken over by the Magna Mater) which
expresses a man’s fear of such a world much more effectively than all the
maddened, forty-foot-tall male-gulpers ever invented.
So far I’ve been discussing fiction written by men and largely for men.22
What about fiction written by women?
Women’s Fiction: Potpourri
Most science fiction writers are men, but some are women, and there are
more women writing the stuff than there used to be. The women’s work
falls into four rough categories:
(1) Ladies’ magazine fiction – in which the sweet, gentle, intuitive little
heroine solves an interstellar crisis by mending her slip or doing something
equally domestic after her big, heroic husband has failed. Zenna Henderson
sometimes writes like this. Fantasy and Science Fiction, which carries more
of this kind of writing than any of the other magazines, once earned a
21 Again I find myself with distinct memories of the story and none of the author’s
name. I would appreciate any information. Science fiction is in a dreadful state
bibliographically.
22 This is perhaps too sweeping a statement; Isaac Asimov certainly writes for
everybody, to give one example only. But male readers do outnumber female
readers, and there is a definite bias in the field toward what I have called the
he-man ethos. I think the generalization can stand as a generalization.
deserved slap over the knuckles from reviewer James Blish.23

(2) Galactic suburbia – very often written by women. Sometimes the
characters are all male, especially if the story is set at work. Most women
writing in the field (like so many of the men) write this kind of fiction.
(3) Space opera – strange but true. Leigh Brackett is one example. Very
rarely the protagonist turns out to be a sword-wielding, muscular,
aggressive woman – but the he-man ethos of the world does not change,
nor do the stereotyped personalities assigned to the secondary characters,
particularly the female ones.
(4) Avant-garde fiction – part of the recent rapprochement between the
most experimental of the science fiction community and the most avant-
garde of what is called “the mainstream.” This takes us out of the field of
science fiction altogether.24
In general, stories by women tend to contain more active and lively
female characters than do stories by men, and more often than men writers,
women writers try to invent worlds in which men and women will be
equals. But the usual faults show up just as often. The conventional idea
that women are second-class people is a hard idea to shake; and while it
is easy enough to show women doing men’s work, or active in society, it
is in the family scenes and the love scenes that one must look for the
author’s real freedom from our most destructive prejudices.
An Odd Equality
I would like to close with a few words about The Left Hand of Darkness, a
fine book that won the Science Fiction Writers of American Nebula Award
for 1969 as the best novel of that year.25 The book was written by a woman
and it is about sex – I don’t mean copulation; I mean what sexual identity
means to people and what human identity means to them, and what kind
of love can cross the barriers of culture and custom. It’s a beautifully written
book. Ursula K. Le Guin, the author, has imagined a world of human
hermaphrodites – an experimental colony abandoned by its creators long
ago and rediscovered by other human beings. The adults of this glacial
23 See William Atheling, Jr. (James Blish), The Issue at Hand, Advent Press, Chicago,
1964, p. 112.
24 Carol Emshwiller is a good example, See the Orbit series of anthologies edited
by Damon Knight (Putnam’s in hardcover, Berkley in paperback).
25 Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness, Ace Books, New York, N.Y. 1969
(paperback). As of this writing it has also received the Hugo, a comparable fan
award.
world of Winter go through an oestrus cycle modeled on the human

menstrual cycle: every four weeks the individual experiences a few days
of sexual potency and obsessive interest in sex during which “he” becomes
either male or female. The rest of the time “he” has no sex at all, or rather,
only the potential of either. The cycle is involuntary, though it can be
affected by drugs, and there is no choice of sex – except that the presence
of someone already into the cycle and therefore of one sex will stimulate
others in oestrus to become of the opposite sex. You would imagine that
such a people’s culture and institutions would be very different from ours
and so they are; everything is finely realized, from their household imple-
ments to their customs to their creation myths. Again, however (and I’m
very sorry to see it), family structure is not fully explained. Worse than
that, child-rearing is left completely in the dark, although the human
author herself is married and the mother of three children. Moreover, there
is a human observer on Winter and he is male; and there is a native hero
and he is male – at least “he” is masculine in gender, if not in sex. The native
hero has a former spouse who is long-suffering, mild and gentle, while he
himself is fiery, tough, self-sufficient, and proud. There is the Byronesque
memory of a past incestuous affair; his lover and sibling is dead. There is
an attempted seduction by a kind of Mata Hari who is female (so that the
hero, of course, becomes male). It is, I must admit, a deficiency in the English
language that these people must be called “he” throughout, but put that
together with the native hero’s personal encounters in the book, the
absolute lack of interest in child-raising, the concentration on work, and
what you have is a world of men. Thus the great love scene in the book is
between two men: the human observer (who is a real man) and the native
hero (who is a female man). The scene is nominally homosexual, but I think
what lies at the bottom of it (and what has moved men and women readers
alike) is that it is a love scene between a man and a woman, with the label
“male: high status” pasted on the woman’s forehead. Perhaps, with the
straitjacket of our gender roles, with women automatically regarded as
second-class, intelligent and active women feel as if they were female men
or hermaphrodites. Or perhaps the only way a woman (even in a love scene)
can be made a man’s equal and the love scene therefore deeply moving, is
to make her nominally male. That is, female in sex but male in gender. Here
is the human narrator describing the alien hero:
to ignore the abstraction, to hold fast to the thing. There was in

this attitude something feminine, a refusal of the abstract ideal, a
submissiveness to the given …26
26 Ibid., p. 201.
Very conventional, although the story is set far, far in the future and the
narrator is supposed to be a trained observer, a kind of anthropologist. Here
is the narrator again, describing human women (he has been asked if they
are “like a different species”):
No. Yes. No, of course not, not really. But the difference is very
important, I suppose the most important thing, the heaviest single
factor in one’s life, is whether one’s born male or female … Even
where women participate equally with men in the society, they still
after all do all the child-bearing and so most of the child-rearing …
And when asked “Are they mentally inferior?”:
I don’t know. They don’t often seem to turn up mathematicians, or

composers of music, or inventors, or abstract thinkers. But it isn’t
that they’re stupid …27
Let me remind you that this is centuries in the future. And again:
The boy … had a girl’s quick delicacy in his looks and movements,
but no girl could keep so grim a silence as he did …28
It’s the whole difficulty of science fiction, of genuine speculation: how

to get away from traditional assumptions which are nothing more than
traditional straitjackets.29 Miss Le Guin seems to be aiming at some kind
of equality between the sexes, but she certainly goes the long way around
to get it; a whole new biology has to be invented, a whole society, a whole
imagined world, so that finally she may bring together two persons of
different sexes who will nonetheless be equals.30
27 Ibid., p. 223.
28 Ibid., p. 281.
29 I am too hard on the book; the narrator isn’t quite that positive and one could
make out a good case that the author is trying to criticize his viewpoint. There
is also a technical problem: we are led to equate the human narrator’s world
(which we never see) with our own, simply because handling two unknowns
in one novel would present insuperable difficulties. Moreover, Le Guin wishes
us to contrast Winter with our own world, not with some hypothetical, different
society which would then have to be shown in detail. However, her earlier
novel, City of Illusions, also published by Ace, is surprisingly close to the space
opera, he-man ethos – either anti-feminism or resentment at being feminine,
depending on how you look at it.
30 There is an old legend (or a new one – I heard it read several years ago on WBAI-
FM) concerning Merlin and some sorceress who was his sworn enemy. Each
had resolved to destroy the other utterly, but they met and – each not knowing
The title I chose for this essay was “The Image of Women in Science
Fiction.” I hesitated between that and “Women in Science Fiction” but if
I had chosen the latter, there would have been very little to say.
There are plenty of images of women in science fiction.
There are hardly any women.
Bibliography
Fiction
James Blish, Black Easter, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1968
Ray Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles, Doubleday, New York, 1950 (available in
Bantam paperback)
Edgar Rice Burroughs, Thuvia, Maid of Mars, Ace Books, New York, 1969 (others
in the John Carter series are in Ace paperback)
Samuel Delany, Babel-17, Ace Books, New York, 1966
Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, Berkley, New York, 1969 (Many editions
exist by now. The novel is copyrighted 1961)
Robert Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Berkley, New York, 1967
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness, Ace Books, New York, 1969
Frederik Pohl, Age of the Pussyfoot, Trident, New York, 1968
J. R. R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, 3 volumes, Ballantine, New York, 1966
I suggest also the Orbit series for short stories:
Damon Knight, ed., Orbit (number whatever), Putnam’s, New York (published in
paperback by Berkley), semi-annual
Several years’-best anthologies are published:
Judith Merril, The Year’s Best Science Fiction
Terry Carr, World’s Best Science Fiction
Harry Harrison, Best Science Fiction of
Current magazines
Amazing and Fantastic, both ed. Ted White
Analog, ed. John W. Campbell, Jr.
Fantasy and Science Fiction, ed. Ed Ferman
Galaxy, ed. Ejler Jakobsson
Criticism
Kingsley Amis, New Maps of Hell, Ballantine, New York, 1960
William Atheling, Jr. (James Blish), The Issue at Hand, Advent Press, Chicago, 1964
who the other was – fell in love. The problem was solved by Merlin’s trans-
forming her into him and she transforming him into herself. Thus both destroyed
and reconstituted in the other sex, they lived happily ever after (one assumes).
Or as Shaw was supposed to have said, he conceived of his female characters
as being himself in different circumstances.
Basil Davenport, Inquiry Into Science Fiction, Longmans, Green and Co., London,
New York, Toronto, 1955
Samuel Delany, “About Five Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Five Words,”
in Extrapolation: the Newsletter of the Conference on Science Fiction of the MLA, ed.
Thomas D. Clareson, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, Vol. X, No. 2, May
1969
Damon Knight, In Search of Wonder, Advent Press, Chicago, 1967 (2nd ed. revised)
Alexei Panshin, Heinlein in Dimension, Advent Press, Chicago, 1968
Joanna Russ, “Dream Literature and Science Fiction,” Extrapolation (see above),
Vol. XI, No. 1, December 1969
SF Horizons, Nos. 1 and 2, eds. Harry Harrison, Brian Aldiss, available at 50¢ per
copy from Tom Boardman, Jr., Pelham, Priory Road, Sunningdale, Berks.,
England. (No. 1 was published in 1964, No. 2 in 1965. The magazine then died.)
For those who wish to hunt it up:

James Blish, “On Science Fiction Criticism,” Riverside Quarterly, August 1968, Vol.
3, No. 3, pp. 214–17
College English, 33:1, October 1971
The Wearing Out of Genre Materials
Genre fiction, like all fiction, is a compromise.

Narrative fiction – unlike lyrical verse – cannot produce the big scene,
or the rush of emotion, or the spectacular situation, or the emotional high
point, in a chronological vacuum. Part of the story must be given over to
rationalization, to chronological and/or dramatic development, to the
background and explanation that make the emotional high point possible,
let alone plausible, let alone reasonable, let alone humanly interesting.
That is, fiction is a wish made plausible. (I have developed this formula
out of my own experience in writing and personal acquaintance with some
two dozen living writers.) The written story is a compromise between the
germinal, wished-for situation, action, or scene and the surrounding
fictional circumstances which make the original X possible in a connected,
chronological narrative. (Without a connected and chronological narrative,
you have a lyrical treatment, not a story.) In good writing, the compromise
between the wish and the forces of reason or conscience is in itself inter-
esting and moving because it is in itself representative of human life. Our
feelings, our actions, our perceptions and our decisions are a series of just
such compromises between what we want, what we want to want, what
we think we ought to want, and what we know (or believe) we can get.
The process I have called making the wish plausible may in fact take over
the work and itself become the work; then you have a story of disillu-
sionment or self-deception. Bad writing is often called undisguised fantasy,
but I would prefer to call it the wish insufficiently worked on by reason
and conscience – good fantasy is often quite bald, and certainly no one
could say of Sophocles’ Oedipus that it is a “carefully disguised” fantasy. On
the contrary, the Oedipal content of Oedipus (!) is hardly disguised at all,
except by the character’s denial that he knew what he was doing; what
has been added to the wish (following Freud’s notion of it) is the corollary:
What if this really happened? That is, the original fantasy, again following
Freud’s idea of it, is combined with reason and conscience. I would add
that to my mind the obligatory scene of Sophocles’ play is the act of finding
out about the past incest, not the act of incest itself, and that the finding-
out scene is the emotional and dramatic high point of the play.
George Bernard Shaw has called great art the triumph of a great mind
over a great imagination.1 He has also described the process of producing
a bad popular play as doing the most daring thing you can and then running
away from the consequences.2 To produce a good play, presumably, one
does the most daring thing one can and then does not run away from the
consequences. Both descriptions seem to me very like mine.
My thesis in this paper is that when writers work in the same genre, i.e.
use the same big scenes or “gimmicks” or “elements” or “ideas” or “worlds”
(similar locales and kinds of plots lead to similar high points), they are
using the same fantasy. Once used in art, once brought to light, as it were,
the effect of the fantasy begins to wane, and the scene embodying it begins
to wear out. The question immediately arises: Which wears out? Does the
underlying wish wear out or does the literary construct lose its power of
embodying the wish, and do the two become disconnected from each
other? There seems to be evidence for both hypotheses.
That art changes when society changes is one of the commonplaces of
the history of art. That is, the old forms (as well as the old styles) do in fact
disappear only when social conditions change, and a static society is appar-
ently content to represent the same things over and over in the same way
– at least in the plastic arts. It would be reasonable to assume that new
forms are sought for new content, i.e. new embodiments of new wishes.
As long as social conditions – and hence, presumably, what people want
– remain the same, art remains the same and keeps its power over the
reader or spectator. Moveover, old and forgotten artistic devices or obses-
sions do seem to reappear, i.e. they are either recreated or rediscovered
when the wish behind them manifests itself again. For example, it has been
suggested that modern ideas about drugs and the drug culture parallel early
Romantic ideas about insanity – we are and they were looking for some
kind of insight or vision beyond ordinary perception. The fact that this
obsession has reappeared does not mean, however, that the wish was
genuinely in abeyance in the intervening period; perhaps there was no
means, or no ready artistic means, for embodying the wish. There is
evidence in individual readers’ and writers’ careers that what really
happens is that the wish persists but the artistic construct loses its
connection with the wish – Auden has said that readers go from bad to
good literature looking for the same thing. That is, in one person’s lifetime
the desire for a certain kind of fantasy persists, but the person is driven to
a higher and higher quality of literary work. The bad work wears out.
1 George Bernard Shaw, Our Theatres in the Nineties, Constable and Co., London,
1954, III, p. 16.
2 Ibid., p. 63.
THE WEARING OUT OF GENRE MATERIALS 221
Also suggestive of the idea that the wish and the construct become discon-
nected in the history of a genre is the surprising freshness and vitality of
the best work within specific genres. A reader going back to H. G. Wells finds
versions of many things now used in science fiction, but Wells’ work isn’t
stale on that account. Often his imitators pall more quickly than he does.
Perhaps some motifs die a natural death over long periods – due to the
effects of social change on the wish – while others are prematurely aged,
especially in the last couple of centuries, by being used too much too fast
by too many writers. (The Tristan myth seems to have really lost its power
as a wish – the forbidden love/death theme repeated so often in Western
literature. Some critics suggest that Lolita is the last Tristanesque novel and
that Nabokov could only stay in the Tristan line by parodying it.)
Practically speaking and in the short run, motifs do wear out. Bela
Lugosi, once the horrifier of thousands, now excites something much closer
to laughter. It is not only the quaintness of the old Dracula, but its
predictability, that amuses people. As a film genre the vampire movie has
been done to death, perhaps even prematurely.
What does a writer do then?
The continuing success of what’s old and good is heartening but
although old work can please readers, this doesn’t much help a writer.
Most difficult of all is to be still interested in the buried wish but unable to
use the scene or high point or action that embodies the wish because that
scene or action has become ever more taken for granted, known, and
expected, not only by the reader but (this is what really counts) also by the
writer. You are suspended like Mahomet’s coffin: you can’t give up the
wish, and yet you can’t realize it.
I would like to suggest that there is a way out of this dilemma, that
writers take it, and that their taking it accounts for the phenomenon of
genre material wearing out (as all fictional narrative eventually may do).
Not only that, the way out of the dilemma accounts for the way scenes or
plots do in fact wear out: that is, not all at once but in three distinct stages.
I have named these Innocence, Plausibility, and Decadence; they might
just as well be called Primitivism, Realism, and Decadence (though
“Realism” here has nothing to do with realism as a style or historical period).
In science fiction these three stages are usually very distinct, as science
fiction themes or big scenes tend to be more than usually visible. Their
intellectual and novelty content is high. There is, for example, the Revolt
of the Robots. If you look into Damon Knight’s collection, A Century of
Science Fiction, you will find three robot stories: “Moxon’s Master” by
Ambrose Bierce, “Reason” by Isaac Asimov and “But Who Can Replace a
Man?” by Brian W. Aldiss.3 Mr. Knight has arranged them in chronological
3 Damon Knight, A Century of Science Fiction, Pan Books, London, 1966.

order, which turns out to be the order of degeneration as I’ve already

described it, with Bierce’s story at the stage of Innocence, Asimov’s at the
stage of Plausibility, and Aldiss’s at the stage of Decadence (though I will
have to qualify that last term).
Innocence is the simple and naive stage in the evolution of a genre
construct. The progress of the story is merely that of drawing closer and
closer to a marvel and the story’s climax consists in a brief glimpse of the
marvel, rather like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. I call the story “innocent”
because the marvel in question here is – or rather was – a genuine novelty.
“Moxon’s Master” resembles those plays that Shaw could not stand because
they were merely dramatic padding for some spectacular situation. (For
example, Bernhardt’s Gismonda ended with the Divine Sarah being burnt
in the last act; the rest of the play was a clumsy and quite implausible
leading-up-to the final debacle.)4 From the moment Bierce’s story finds its
feet, it toddles toward the big scene – Machine Bites Man. The rest of the
story is merely a set of devices to delay that final revelation and the creation
of a sketchy world into which the final revelation can erupt. After expla-
nations and preparations that probably strike modern readers as
unnecessary, after a moody storm borrowed from the older genre of Gothic
romance, the narrator finally witnesses the heart of the story – the
invention turning on the inventor. And that is that. Bierce writes as if his
readers had to be cajoled into accepting that last scene – one we can see
coming from the fourth page of the story, if not before – although I would
think (not upon any evidence, I admit) that Bierce’s readers enjoyed the
scene as much as he did. Multiplying the delays increases the anticipation;
the scene itself, the idea itself, is still novel, that is, it is enough all by itself.
We are still Innocent. “Moxon’s Master” was written in 1893. Isaac
Asimov’s “Reason” was written in 1941. The situation is the same as that
of “Moxon’s Master” – the Rebelling Robot – although the outcome is
happier. But with “Reason” we enter the stage of Plausibility and Asimov’s
story does a great deal more than pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Once you have managed to embody a wish (and I won’t pretend yet to
even know what wish that is) in the idea of a thinking machine that turns
against its creators, and once the idea itself stops enrapturing you, the next
step is to make it plausible. The wish (or situation) here is making many
more concessions to logic. What we think of now as typically science-
fictional questions are being asked: How would such a machine be
constructed? At what level would technology have to be to make such a
machine possible? What would such machines be used for? What would
4 Shaw, Our Theatres in the Nineties, III, p. 175.

people’s attitude be toward such machines? And – most important – what

would such machines be like? The question that’s being asked in this second
stage is “What, if really?” and the author isn’t satisfied until he has
constructed a whole society, a whole technology, and a set of rules for the
operation of rebelling robots. You do not, as in the first story, see a marvel
once and without any explanation. The treatment becomes complicated,
plausible and (in that sense) realistic – I don’t mean realism in style, as I
said before, but realistic in the sense of making concessions to sense,
actuality, and logic. It is at this stage, I think, that a great author may decide
to treat the motif seriously – if it has unserious origins or pulp origins – as
Henry James did with ladies’ magazine fiction and Dickens with stage
melodrama.
Shaw’s dictum about great artists exhausting their material begins to
apply here. I suggest that Asimov’s “Reason” grew out of stories like
“Moxon’s Master” – this is a fine idea but we must treat it as if it were real
and we must treat it in detail. In “Reason” (as in all of Asimov’s robot
stories) the focus of attention is on how robots would have to work – thus
you have the Laws of Robotics and the explanation of malfunctions in
terms of those laws. This is a far cry from the glimpse of the enraged machine
in Bierce’s story.
At the stage of Plausibility, the original inventor-writers’ simplicity
having gone stale, material can be used by good writers.
With the third stage, that of Decadence, we bifurcate or trifurcate; there
are several ways in which a genre construct may become decadent:
1) Stories may become petrified into collections of rituals, with all freshness
and conviction gone. Television Westerns are at this stage. This is the
stage of foregone conclusions.
2) Stories may become part of a stylized convention – not to be confused
with complete petrification. In a petrified genre, the details are more
important than the whole, e.g. the cowboys’ tight pants, while stylized
fiction retains the sense of an aesthetic whole and a sub-ordination of
parts to some sort of aesthetic order. Thus ballet is sometimes stylized
and sometimes petrified; but vampire movies now seem to be petrified
for good. Possibly stylization is just a way-station on the journey toward
petrifaction. It’s also possible that stylization agrees better with dance
and music (the “purer” media) than with drama or fiction (the more
impure media).
3) What once were the big scenes or frissons of the whole story may be
shrunk, elided, compressed, or added to, that is, until only the original
wish/scene is left as a metaphoric element among other metaphoric
elements. For example, there are New York poets who make collages
of their favorite scenes from science fiction stories. This is not science
fiction; this is using what originally was the point of some story or stories
for a totally different artistic whole.
The motif or scene or thrilling action for whose sake whole stories were
once written becomes a metaphorical or lyrical element in something else.
On the way toward this third kind of decadence is Brian Aldiss’s “But
Who Can Replace a Man?” which was written in 1958. Again robots turn
on their creators, or try to, but the story is not about Revolting Robots: it
is about something else. The situation that ends “Moxon’s Master” and
that informs “Reason” is here assumed, and the story does not go on to
explore the supporting circumstances and consequences of the situation,
as “Reason” does. The robots’ capitulation at the end is not victorious
because the human race has won; nor is it interesting because you are told
how the human race has won (as Asimov does in “Instinct”).
The end is strangely moving and very complex: the animalism of the
man, the eerie childishness of the robots, the homeliness of Aldiss’s compar-
isons (“like a pincushion,” “like a dull man at a bar,” “no bigger than a
toaster”), the exhaustion of the land, the oddly parodic journey in which
one traveler after another falls by the wayside and is left keening among
the barren rocks – all these compose a kind of lyrical image. The story is
really about what it is to be human – it shows you this by creating the
oddly human incompleteness of the machines. “But who Can Replace a
Man?” makes us experience some of the less attractive qualities of
humanity by reproducing old adventure-story incidents for its own
purposes and by dwelling on apparently irrelevant detail. The story is not
about robots rebelling, or why robots rebel, or what robots are; it uses these
common science fiction elements for another purpose: showing us what
we are. In fact, many of the explanations which would make up the bulk
of a second-stage story are completely missing: for example, how has
humanity survived long enough to wear trace elements out of the soil?
Why didn’t we blow ourselves up first? And so on. Other details, like the
classes of brains, are only referred to obliquely and fleetingly.
“But Who Can Replace a Man?” shows us a science-fictional element
on the verge of death – i.e. on the way to continued existence only as a
metaphor. A “straight” story about Revolting Robots written this late in
the day can only be a stylized story – for example, a parody – or a petrified
story. The Revolting Robots must be there for some other reason besides
themselves. We’ve come a long way from “Moxon’s Master”. One might
even argue that in “But Who Can Replace a Man?” we witness the
emergence of a new big scene – the last scene. The emotional weight of
the story is in that scene. But perhaps the process can only go one way.
The three stages of Innocence, Plausibility, and Decadence may present

a paradigm of the history of every aesthetic element in art – if you look at
the prelude to the big scene in Bierce’s story, you will see that it is a
potpourri of once-fresh, then-decadent materials: the stormy night, the
glimpse of horror, and so on. Old fiction provides the leaf-drift out of which
rises the new. And I wonder if metaphor is not the ultimate destination of
every narrative element. At first it is the wish itself, the big scene, the fasci-
nating part presented almost bare; then it become plausible, complicated
and an occasion for realistic thought; finally it dies as narrative and, entering
the general culture, becomes matter for lyric poetry or metaphoric material
for new fiction.
Of course this process has been very much hastened in the last few
centuries by the increase of social change and in the last few decades by
the instant dissemination of every novelty through television, radio, and
movies. Motifs begin to rot before they have got out of the first stage. The
mass media seem to have got stuck at a level of ritual repetition, what
passes for “new ideas” on TV being mostly a desperate addiction to quirks
and the trimming with cheap gimmickry of very stale stuff indeed. Maybe
the real process then goes underground.
Can the process be reversed? May someone, noticing a glancing allusion,
a figure of speech, a metaphor, all that’s left of a once-sprawling empire
of fiction, be inspired to flesh out that hint and make it fiction once again?
I think not, but I cannot substantiate my suspicion. Self-conscious recon-
structions of the old can lead to something new but not usually what the
imitator thinks he’s after. Renaissance Italy wished to copy Greek drama;
it ended up inventing opera. But this is not reversing the process; it’s
happenstance.
Where do the new elements come from? I really don’t know. I suspect
that genuine novelty is usually crude and/or silly, and that it occurs in bad
or undistinguished work. Far from being original or truly revolutionary,
great work – even good work – is apt to be the last or next-to-last of
something, the use of collective creations as a sort of jumping-off place.
Critics are apt to hail second- or third-stage work as “new” – Dickens’
novels, for example, or Ibsen’s plays, although in retrospect it is clear that
nobody could imitate either of them without being instantly smothered by
their example.
Of course, different parts of one author’s work will be on different levels
of evolution (so will elements within one story) and the whole process is
usually quite complex. Tracing origins is a tricky business.
Let me use vampire stories and films as an example. Where is the real
origin of our modern genre – in Gothic romance? Did writers like Monk
Lewis and Mrs. Radcliffe get the vampire from real folk-tales? How much
was invented and by whom? Did the reporters or translators of the folk-
tales color and change them (as Andrew Lang is supposed to have done)?
Sheridan Lefanu’s “Carmilla” is clearly already at the stage of Plausibility;
yet much of Bram Stoker’s Dracula is back in the rabbit-out-of-the-hat
stage. Not only that, but their vampirish conventions are different. Did
Stoker not read “Carmilla”? That hardly seems likely. Why, then, didn’t
he adopt Lefanu’s convention that vampires can live in daylight? Did he
draw his ideas from some other source? It seems to have been Dracula
that stuck for the genre; why? “Carmilla” is a much better story. Did
subsequent writers avoid imitating “Carmilla” because it was a better
story? Even if you assume that the modern genre comes from Bram
Stoker, is it via the book or the film? And which film – the 1931 film
with Bela Lugosi or Hammer’s reincarnation of the early 1960s which
makes explicit the sexuality only implicit in the former? By the time you
get to the movie Blood and Roses you are in the period of decadence in
both the bad and the good sense; haute couture, incest, neurosis,
lesbianism, and high society are icing on a pretty stale cake. These frills,
however, resonate very interestingly with the basic story, and the film’s
hallucinatory sequences are pure third-stage: vampirism for the sake of
something else. Bergman’s Hour of the Wolf goes further still, into the
purely metaphoric stage; it appropriates the whole tradition in one or
two glancing incidents (e.g. the gentleman who walks up the wall and
the last scene). Certainly there is no future for the genre except as a
metaphor within some other work. By now the whole complex of ideas
has passed so into the general culture that it is conceivable in art only as
lyric imagery or as affectionate reminiscence. In fact, the vampire
tradition has hardly been used in lyric verse – I can only remember one
poem in Fantasy and Science Fiction. I always thought Italian directors
would do very well with vampires as cultural symbols for the rotten rich
– many of the traditions about the vampire are close to the atmosphere
of films like La Notte or La Dolce Vita.
Lyric writing (verse or other) is a graveyard of dead narrative – events,
dramas, personages once used in narrative in their own right. Certainly
lyric verse is generally in advance of prose fiction, both in style and matter.
It is the first to adapt to shifts of sensibility because it has already digested
everything the general cultural context has to offer, while fiction and drama
lag behind, their sources being everything that is produced as reportage,
chronicle, history, sociological analysis, etc. The lyric mode must, I think,
work with well-digested material, since the central organizing impulse of
the lyric is a collecting of imagery around some emotional or other center.
The combination is therefore what counts – fresh material would prove
too centrifugal, too distracting.
The emotional or other center of the lyric, however, may very well turn
out to be new itself – thus the stage gets to Samuel Beckett’s Endgame long
after the publication of Eliot’s Waste Land. The emotional center of the
poem becomes the big scene/high point/emotional weight of the play. But
the poem can produce the X without surrounding material, without
chronology, without explanation, without plausibility, without leading-
up-to. The play – even Beckett’s play – must wait until the central image
can somehow be set in chronology, in dramatic progression, in some kind
of plausibility, in some kind of explanation.
As theatre and fiction become more and more lyrical, one would expect
the time-lag to become narrower and perhaps to disappear. This is
happening. Brian Aldiss is now no more a writer of narrative fiction than
is Donald Barthelme.
Of course, when I speak of genre constructs wearing out, I’m speaking
of writers, not readers – what matters is what writers find stale. Unfortu-
nately, the commercial possibilities of a totally petrified genre are
enormous, as the eternal life of Western films testifies. But even here the
very oldest genres sink to the bottom and finally drop out of existence.
Some genres tucked away in odd corners: nurse novels, spy stories,
detective stories (a: sordid American, and b: English village), modern
Gothics, Westerns, much science fiction, pornography, avant-garde fiction,
etc.
We do seem to insist on specialization in our fiction.
Some genres have hardly been touched – pornography, for example,
seems never to have passed the first stage. Some are dead: Westerns,
detective stories, spy stories. Some are beginning to lose their bloom: avant-
garde novels. Some, like science fiction, are entering the third stage.
Now a writer can do much worse than rummage among “trash,” that
is, genres like the nurse novel. Trash is one of the sources of art. The crude,
stupid, obvious novelties can begin a whole cycle.
In fact artists usually pay a great deal of attention to “low” culture, and
when they find low culture that interests them they pay it the supreme
compliment of stealing it. The demand for originality from good writers is
a rather late development in the history of literature. Everyone knows that
Chaucer’s plots were not his, nor were Shakespeare’s, but even in the
recent past many great artists can be shown to have stolen all sorts of things
from bad art. Ibsen, for example, owes a considerable debt to Scribe, Shaw
to all sorts of melodrama (see his preface to “The Devil’s Disciple,” for
example, or that to “Captain Brassbound’s Conversion”), Henry James to
ladies’-magazine fiction.
One of the reasons science fiction is reaching a wider audience now
than ever before may be that many of its concepts have reached the stage
of being digested (if I can call it that) – they can be picked up by writers
outside the field. That is, science fiction is becoming decadent in both the
good and the bad sense. I find that my students read and admire Asimov
and Clarke in greater numbers than students ever have before, but when
they write they steal fantasies from A. E. Van Vogt, who is unmistakably
in the first stage, that of pure invention. They don’t write A. E. Van Vogt
stories; they use him for poems or for strange works that aren’t, properly
speaking, science fiction at all, or for science fiction which owes nothing
directly to Van Vogt but an eerie kind of glamor. When artists are given a
choice between imitating crude originals and second-hand, polished
literary versions thereof, most bad artists will choose the literary version
and most good artists the bad original. My good writing students don’t
imitate Asimov because one can’t imitate Asimov; he is good enough to
have exhausted his subject matter. A. E. Van Vogt (to put the matter as
politely as I can) is a very inventive and yet very bad artist – in Shaw’s
words, the victory of an enormously fertile imagination over a common-
place mind. (He said this about Marie Corelli.)5
Of course not all new science fiction writers are third-stage writers. Larry
Niven, for example, is a second-stage writer and a very good one. But “new
wave” science fiction is third-stage science fiction, or rather it exists on the
border between the second and third stages. I think the time of petrifi-
cation and ritual is still far away; it may never come or may not come until
our whole Western idea of science and our Western idea of change
themselves go the way of all social constructs. Science fiction is the only
genre I know that is theoretically open-ended; that is, new science fiction
is possible as long as there is new science. Not only are there new sciences
– mostly life sciences like neuro-biology – there are also a multitude of
infant sciences like ethology and psychology. More important than that,
all of science – indeed, all philosophical (or “descriptive”) disciplines – are
beginning to be thought of as part of one over-arching discipline. Thus
physics is continuous with chemistry, chemistry with biology, biology with
ecology, ecology with sociology, sociology with psychology, psychology
with philosophy, and philosophy with the arts. And so on. This opens the
whole world and every single extant discipline to science fiction.
Science fiction, therefore, need not limit itself to certain kinds of
characters, certain locales, certain emotions, or certain plot devices.
Whoever writes fiction about how things might be if they were not as they
are, writes this seriously, and does not offend against what is known to be
known (as Samuel Delany puts it), is writing science fiction.
5 Ibid., p. 16.
Even now much science fiction is not genre writing – the only element
that makes many stories science fiction is that they are not about things as
they are. We may end up dividing writing into two parts: fiction about
things as they characteristically are or were (contemporary fiction and
historical fiction) and fiction about things as they may be or might have
been (science fiction).
No particular artistic element in fiction can survive forever, but the
speculation, the free-wheeling free thinking we prize in science fiction,
may turn out to be too general a principle to be tied to particular scenes
or particular emotional high points or particular plot devices. Only a change
in the most basic of our social assumptions will make science fiction non-
viable, as only a change in extremely basic assumptions can cause people
to stop writing satire or fantasy, both of which assume that the status quo
is not all there is, and that things might be different. Put “things might be
different” together with any kind of scientific method and you have science
fiction. Surely such a compound will survive mere changes in fashion.
It may – and I think it will – become as widely read and as important
as fantasy, the tradition of which is several thousand years old.
I will be very glad to see that happen.
Turning Points, ed. Damon Knight (Harper and Row, New

York, 1977)1
Alien Monsters
Good morning – or rather, good afternoon, everybody. I’m very glad to be

here and very glad to be speaking to you. In asking me here to speak, you
know, Tom Purdom really paid me a tremendous compliment. After all
sorts of things about how intelligent I was, and how he was sure I’d be so
interesting and give such an interesting talk on a fascinating subject, he
paid the ultimate compliment: He said, “And most of all we want you to
be first on the program because you’re a teacher.” (I thought he was going
to say, you know how to talk, you’ll be fascinating, fluent and so on, but
this wasn’t it.) No, he said, “You’re a teacher and you have a regular job
and you’re the only one we can depend on to get up early enough in the
morning.” Little does he know!
I am glad to see, looking around, that this is not true. I’m not the only
one. Thank you all. It was heroic. It was heroic for me, anyway.
Now I’m going to try, today, to talk about something that people will
disagree with – some people, anyway – and some of you may get pretty
mad at me before I am finished. But I think it’s worth it, anyway. I’m trying
to operate on the old Leninist principle of presenting a united front to
outsiders but being perfectly free to quarrel among ourselves. I think this
is something science fiction ought to do – I mean the quarreling among
ourselves. And if we’re going to indulge in it, we had better do so pretty
quickly; there isn’t much time left. The days of our privacy are numbered.
Really, the academicians are after us, and there is going to be an invasion
of outside people into this field of the kind none of us has ever seen before
– all sorts of goggle-eyed, clump-footed types who will be bringing in all
sorts of outside standards (good or bad), outside experience, outside
contexts, outside remarks, naïveté in some things, great sophistication in
other things, all sorts of oddities, all sorts of irrelevancies – well, Heaven
only knows what. I don’t even know if it’ll be good or bad or how good or
how bad. But it is going to happen. The academicians are after us.
Now, if you don’t already know it, literary academicians – and, by the
way, I want to include what you might call semi-professional types, like
1 Speech delivered at the Philadelphia Science Fiction Conference, November

9, 1968.
ALIEN MONSTERS 231
the sorts of writers and critics who write for magazines like the Atlantic,
even though they may not be actually connected with universities –
anyway, literary academicians are always looking for something new to
criticize or some new way to criticize something old, and they are just
beginning to realize that right under their noses is a whole new, absolutely
virgin field of literature that nobody has even had a go at yet. What’s going
to happen when they realize this fully will be a sort of literary California
gold rush with what we have always considered our own private property
trampled under mobs and mobs of people who haven’t the slightest respect
for our uniqueness, or the things we like about ourselves, or the pet griev-
ances we’ve been nursing for years, and so on. Some of these people are
fools, but some of them – and I know some of them – are a lot more sophis-
ticated than anybody in this room. I know that they are certainly much
more sophisticated than I am. I think when they get into the field of science
fiction, as critics of course, that they will find s.f. is an antidote for a lot of
nonsense that they are subject to, but I am afraid it’s going to work the
other way round, too.
Actually, I want to get my own licks in before the crowd arrives.
All this was brought home to me in a very personal way a couple of
weeks ago. I teach at Cornell, and when Cornell University people find out
that I write science fiction, there’s this sort of wary and cautious couple of
steps back – “Oh, you write science fiction?” – and then, with a kind of
glaze over the eyes, they say, “Ah – that’s H. G. Wells and all that, isn’t it?”
and I say, “Right!” And then they run away. This is how it happens. Well,
this is no longer so. Just two weeks ago today I found in my office mailbox
a note asking me to teach a course in Science Fiction this summer: ENGLISH
305; SCIENCE FICTION – Open to Graduate Students.
And that started me thinking about all the things I’ve just been saying
here this afternoon. And it made me feel very strongly that instead of trying
to please both other people and myself, I had better be as nasty as possible.
After all, we know we’re good. We know we’re on to something. I knew it
ever since I was fourteen, when I found out that science fiction was more
exciting than vampire stories. And it is, too. I’ve been reading the stuff for
about sixteen years now – I’m addicted to it, like everyone else here – but
lately what you might call the Long-Term Fan Syndrome has been
happening to me. This is the disease that everybody gets sooner or later
and the symptoms are always the same. “Oh, they used to write it better.
Oh, it was better in the old days.” Of course, when you talk to people, you
find out that they never have quite the same old days in mind – some will
pick the thirties, some the early fifties, some the late fifties, etc., etc. Then
there is this student of mine – “Oh, they used to write it better. Oh, it was
better in the old days.” I asked him how old he was – seventeen – and what
the old days were. It turned out that by the old days he meant last
year. When people start differing like that, it is obvious that what they
mean is the days of their own youth, that is, the days when they first started
reading s.f.
Now, I don’t like this. I want to keep on reading the stuff. I want to
enjoy it. So I started thinking, and out of all the things I could complain
about, all the things I could kvetch about and criticize, one story and one
picture somehow stuck in my mind.
I’m not going to tell you what magazine the story was in, or who wrote
it, or who did the picture, because those things really aren’t important.
You can find many, many other stories like it, and quite a few other pictures
like it. And I want to make clear at the very beginning that I am not talking
about the individual defects of individual writers or individual editors –
this is not the point at all. What I am trying to do is get at something that
is in the air, and that affects science fiction as a whole. It’s not a question
of there being a multitude of coincidental decisions as to what to write,
just by happenstance. Because a lot of these writers are very different from
each other personally. I know many of them. But something in the field
is affecting all of them and making people who are not alike write alike.
Anyway, the story itself was a very clear, simple little story – very
delicately and carefully told. It was about homosexuality on Mars. Why
Mars I don’t know, except that wherever you are as a reader, you’re not
there at any rate. The point of the story was that men who are isolated for
a long time without women will attempt to get their sexual satisfaction
from each other – and this is quite true; this is the sort of thing that any
warden of any prison in the United States can tell you, not to mention the
people who know perfectly well that such things happen – although not
of course, to everyone – in places like the Army. Anyway, the story was
perfectly unsensational and even decent to the point of reticence. There
wasn’t even any sex in it. Instead – and this is typically American – one
man killed another. It was really an all-right story, very rational, very
reasonable, and not in the least shocking. I read it. I had to sort of prop my
eyes open, you know, because actually it was pretty dull, but I read it.
Then I came to that picture.
It was a picture of the murderer – this one guy who had killed the man
who had made advances to him. Out of horror and disgust, you see. And
the story made the point that such exaggerated horror was a product of
unconscious, latent homosexuality. Well, apparently the artist had taken
alarm even at latent, unconscious homosexuality, and had decided that, by
God, he was going to show you that this character was no effeminate sissy
– he was a man – so what he did was put layer on layer of muscles on this
character, and give him beetling eyebrows and a snarl – I simply cannot
ALIEN MONSTERS 233
describe the effect. He would’ve made an adult male gorilla look fragile. It
was absolutely wild.
I was reading my magazine in the student cafeteria and as I reached this
picture, and I think I made some sort of extraordinary noise, like “Eeyah,”
which attracted the attention of a student who was nearby.
“What are you reading?” “Science fiction.” “Can I see?” – he was very
interested – “Oh, that’s an alien.”
Well, he was right, of course. He was absolutely right. In the anxiety to
show you a real he-man, the artist who did the picture had created a
megalith, a monster, an armored tank, something that had only the faintest
resemblance to a human being. I loved that picture. It was so awful that it
was wonderful. I wanted to keep it but it fell in my orange juice and got
sort of messed up. Still, every once in a while I think of that picture – and
then I think of one of those megaliths trying to rape another megalith –
and it makes me feel good. In its own way, it’s perfectly inimitable.
Of course, the trouble is that the science fiction illustrator who did the
picture was not trying to be funny. And therein lies the whole point of my
speech today.
It is a scandal, a real scandal, that in a field like ours, which is supposed
to be so unconventional, so free, free to extrapolate into the future, free of
prejudice, of popular nonsense, so rational and so daring, it is an especial
scandal that in our field so many readers and so many writers – or so many
stories, anyhow – cling to this Palaeolithic illusion, this freak, this myth of
what a real man is. And it’s a scandal that he ruins so many stories. Because
he does, you know, he ruins everything he touches. He has only to make
one appearance and at once the story he is in coughs, kicks up its heels and
dies dead. He has only to look at a woman to turn her into pure cardboard.
Let me put it more generally, and I hope more clearly.
Science fiction is still – very strangely and very unfortunately – subject
to a whole constellation or group of values which do not have any really
necessary connection with science fiction. I would call them conventional
or traditional masculine values except that they are really more than that;
they are a kind of wild exaggeration of such values. Of course, everything
becomes exaggerated in s.f. because we don’t show things in the here-and-
now, but as they might be. It’s a kind of fantasy and dramatic high relief.
By the way, I think what I’m talking about is particularly American; I don’t
think American s.f. has in the past owed very much to British s.f. or that
they spring from the same roots at all. American science fiction began in
the pulps – I’m not downgrading this, I think it’s a very good thing, although
I can’t go into the reason why – now – because I don’t have time. But this
origin in trash – real, popular trash – may have something to do with the
persistence of this really strange kind of image. If I wanted to put it in one
sentence, it would be something like this:
The only real He-Man is the Master of the Universe.
Which, of course, leaves out a great many people.

If you believe this but are a little less extreme about stating it, it comes
out something like this:
The real He-Man is invulnerable. He has no weaknesses. Sexually,

he is super-potent. He does exactly what he pleases, everywhere and
at all times. He is absolutely self-sufficient. He depends on nobody,
for this would be a weakness. Toward women he is possessive,
protective and patronizing; to men he gives orders. He is never
frightened by anything or for any reason; he is never indecisive, and
he always wins.
In short, he is an alien monster, just as I said.

The trouble with this creature – the megalith with the beetling eyebrows
– is the trouble with all mythologies. It’s not that he doesn’t exist, because
everybody knows that he doesn’t exist. I don’t think there’s a single sane
man on earth who could seriously and honestly say: Yes, I am all that. I
am like that. I am never frightened of anything. I have no weaknesses
whatsoever. I am a sexual dynamo. I always have my own way. Everybody
obeys me – and so forth. We all know that such a person is impossible. We
don’t really believe that he exists.
But we do believe that somehow – despite what we actually know about
other people and ourselves – that he ought to exist, or that he’s in some
sense ideal, or that there’s something wrong with people who are not like
that. Or, at the very least, that it would be a hell of a lot of fun pretending
you really are like that, even though you know you aren’t and you couldn’t
possibly be.
Now I don’t like this – part of the reason is obvious. This is an ideal that
is by definition absolutely closed to me. I can pretend to be Cleopatra but I
can’t very well pretend to be Antony. And for various reasons, Cleopatra
doesn’t appear in science fiction much. I like to think that because I’m a
woman I can stand outside this whole business and be somewhat more
objective than if I were caught up in it, as I think a man has to be, to some
degree.
I also don’t like this strange myth that is set up as a person, because he
kills every story he touches, or almost every story – they’re usually stone
dead before the first word comes out of the typewriter. If the stories are
alive, they live through the other characters, or through the alien
characters, or through incidental comedy or through other interesting
things that come in as sort of sidelines. But this turns the story into a grab
ALIEN MONSTERS 235
bag, with no center. The story cannot live through its central character, its
central conflict, or its central system of values.
The third reason I don’t like this kind of thing – and this is the most
important of all – is that this ultramasculine scheme of values messes up
one of the most important and fascinating subjects science fiction is dealing
with today. Also, was dealing with, by the way, although I will stand
corrected about this – but I think it’s been a preoccupation of s.f. from way
back.
I am talking about the subject of power. Now this is a serious business.
What you and I think about power, and what we expect powerful people
to do, what we are willing to let them do, the kinds of people we give
power to, whether we have any power, and how much – these are really
important. And for some reason, s.f. seems to have gone right to questions
like this from the beginning. How should power be used? What does power
justify? How can power be overcome? All this sort of thing. For a contem-
porary novel – only one among many – Bug Jack Barron. It’s practically
about nothing else.
I think again that this may be a particularly American thing, the
flavor(?), well, the quality, the particular kind of concern we have with
power. Europeans tend to concentrate on the ethical side, and you get
things like Albert Camus writing about suicide being the supremely moral
act, things that tend to seem pretty bizarre to an American. Europeans –
would you believe European movies? after all, I haven’t read everything –
seem to take it for granted that people are pretty powerless, pretty helpless,
everybody has weaknesses, everybody is limited by society – and that’s just
the way it is. For us, power seems to be a problem per se, just because it
exists. And vulnerability, too – the opposite side of power – this, too, is a
problem just because it exists. We aren’t just concerned with power; we’re
downright obsessed with it. And we tend to link up the idea of power with
that old, beetling-browed he-man I was talking about. We insist that power
– mind you, absolute power, too, power of all kinds – is equivalent to
masculinity.
This leads to trouble. The trouble with making masculinity equal to
power – especially the sort of absolute, ultimate power that s.f. writers like
to write about – is that you can’t look at either power or masculinity clearly.
This is bad enough when you can’t think clearly about masculinity, but
when you can’t think clearly about power, it’s god-awful. In politics, for
instance, power is simply real – it exists – it’s like the electricity in the lights
of this room; and if you look at a real political situation or a real moral
situation, and instead of seeing what’s really there, you see Virility –
Manhood at Stake – goodness knows what – everything gets all mucked
up. Of course, this sort of problem isn’t confined to science fiction: you can
see it happening all over the place. But science fiction has a unique chance
to deal with these things in the chemically pure form, so to speak, to really
speculate about them. But so often we don’t.
One of the strangest things in s.f., when you meet this concern with
power, is that s.f. writers seem pretty much to insist on an either/or
situation. That is, people in stories tend to be either all-powerful (this the
Ruler of the Universe again) or absolutely powerless. Either the hero is
conquering the world or the world is returning the compliment by
conquering him. In any case, it’s a completely black-and-white situation
with nothing in between. Alexei Panshin once complained about
characters who are strangled by their vacuum cleaners. Well, I think this
idea of megalithic, absolute power has a lot to do with being strangled by
your vacuum cleaner. If the real man is absolutely invulnerable, then if
you’re not absolutely invulnerable, you’re not a real man, and if you’re
not a real man, you’re absolutely weak and absolutely vulnerable, so even
a vacuum cleaner can get you. You even sometimes get this weird hybrid,
who is at the same time a superman (utterly powerful) and is being perse-
cuted by the whole world (i.e. he is utterly powerless). In fact, he’s being
persecuted because he’s a superman, that is, because he’s powerful. But if
he is persecuted, he’s powerless. That is, he’s powerless because he’s
powerful. Or vice versa. Sometimes the brain just reels.
Also, you get something else very bad in science fiction from the
confusion of maleness – masculinity – with power. You get what’s been
called pornoviolence, that is, violence for the sake of violence. (“Pornog-
raphy of violence” – pornoviolence. An elegant word.) I certainly think
that science fiction is less of an offender here, if you want to call it a offense,
than what’s called “mainstream” writing. But we do get a lot of this. I am
also getting tired of characters who are tortured or flayed or impaled alive
in various ways, or who have to drag themselves along corridors “in a blaze
of pain” (it’s always a blaze of pain in these stories – nobody ever feels just
bleh) or they climb mountains while their lungs are bursting just so the
author can enjoy himself masochistically by showing what strong stuff his
heroes are made of. “Every nerve screamed with the pain that was coursing
through him.” We’ve all read this dozens of time. Sometimes it’s pain and
sometimes it’s rapture, but it’s always bullshit. Bullshit is nice for fun and
games, but when you adopt the attitude behind the bullshit and try
somehow to apply it or believe in it in real life that’s not good. What I mean
is, power is a real thing. It exists. To have power over other people, to
control other people, is a real thing which produces real emotions, real
problems, real anxieties, real pleasures – a writer can depict these. But if
he is all hung up on the masculinity-equals-power bit or the heroes-must-
be-all-powerful-or-they’re-not-heroes then he is going to thrash around
ALIEN MONSTERS 237
in a sort of void. At the worst, he will simply produce stuff that is too dull
to read. At best, he will produce a kind of pornography.
But he won’t get beyond that. I wish I could bring in here a book by
Stephen Marcus called The Other Victorians. It has one of the best defini-
tions of pornography that I’ve ever seen. Mr. Marcus’s point is that what
makes something pornographic is not simply that it excites you sexually.
After all, even a book like Madame Bovary, which we consider very reticent,
should excite you sexually, among all the other things it does. What
pornography does is exclude everything else, and – in the process, ironi-
cally enough – it ends up excluding real sex, too. Pornoviolence is
pornographic because it excludes real violence, and the real experience of
what violence is and means and feels like. It excludes real power, and the
real experience of what power is and means and feels like. In their place,
it puts myths, fantasies – in a word, nonsense.
Let me return now to my beetle-browed, lumpy-muscled friend. I’ve
complained about the bad effects of a system of values that make being
Ruler of the Universe the only decent position in life for a red-blooded
American boy. But there is another objection to this system of values
besides the way it messes up people’s heads when it comes to thinking
about power. I mentioned before that although nobody actually sets up as
the Invulnerable Superman, still there’s this kind of omnipresent, vague
feeling that it would be pretty nice if you could be an invulnerable superman,
though, alas, one can’t be in real life. Let me run down the list again: No
weaknesses. Super-potent. Absolutely uncontrolled by others. Absolutely
self-sufficient. Depends on nobody. Gives everybody orders. Never afraid.
Never indecisive. He always wins.
Ah! if only one could be like this.
But is it so attractive, really?
It seems to me that for the one quality – being invulnerable – every
other quality has been given up. The super He-Man is super-potent (he
has to be, this is an expression of strength) but does he have super-pleasure?
Not in the stories I’ve read. Pleasure involves a kind of letting-go, a kind
of loss of self, and he can’t afford this. This would be weakness. Is he super-
happy? Usually not. He does exactly what he wants – that is, nobody
controls him – but is he therefore super-spontaneous? Super-impulsive?
No. Being spontaneous would be dangerous; it would expose him to
weakness, and he must not be weak. He can be fond of other people, in a
sort of parental or protective way, and he can behave tenderly toward them
– although he doesn’t usually – but no one can be tender to him because
that would mean he depended on someone, and depending on someone
would mean he was weak. People admire him but they can’t love him, and
if you think for a minute, you’ll see that he can’t love anyone else, because
love is possible only between equals and by definition he has no equals.

He is a very lonely man. There is a kind of sadness that runs through stories
about the superman, and the rugged he-man, too – sometimes the author
is aware of it and sometimes he is not – but there is often (underground,
sometimes) this profound, despairing sadness. I’m thinking now of Gordon
Dickinson’s Dorsai, the warrior people, where the sadness is quite explicit.
You see, the price you have to pay for absolute mastery of every situation
is awful. It’s the whole rest of life.
Well, if you don’t have traditional masculine values, then what? Tradi-
tional feminine values? I can’t answer this vehemently enough. No, no, a
thousand times no. There are stories like that in s.f. and I hate them. If I
opened Analog tomorrow and found that by divine fiat it had suddenly
turned into The Ladies’ Home Journal, I think I would drop dead. And not
just from shock, either.
If anything gets me madder than the strong, laconic individual who
defeats Ming the Merciless by killing sixteen million billion aliens with his
bare hands in four pages, it’s the sweet, gentle, compassionate intuitive little
woman who solves some international crisis by mending her slip or
something, when her big, strong, brilliant husband has failed to do so for
twenty-three chapters.
I find conventional masculine heroics funny, but conventional feminine
heroics are nauseating without being funny. To me, anyway.
Well, what I want – I can’t describe it really, because it would be different
for every writer, but maybe I can give a sort of general impression.
I would like to see science fiction keep the daring, the wildness, the
extravagant imagination that we got from starting out in the pulps – but I
would like to see us shed the kind of oversimplified values and attitudes
it got from the same place – this business about the He-Man is only one of
them. So many science fiction stories operate on assumptions about people
and assumptions about values that would hardly be adequate to describe
the social relations of a bunch of flatworms. There are science fiction novels
– whole big fat novels – built around moral problems that would be instantly
solvable by a year-old chimpanzee. I have also, by the way, seen first-rate
adventure stories ruined by people who insisted on reading them as if they
contained profound moral problems, though the story itself clearly had not
such intentions. There is no reason on earth why a story has to be didactic,
has to teach an explicit moral. But if you are going to moralize, you had
better make sure it’s above the Kindergarten level.
Anyway, as I said, the barbarian hordes are knocking at the gate. And
these people are sharp. I think we’re going to open their eyes to an awful
lot, but I think the converse is going to happen, too, and sometimes I don’t
like the idea at all. They’re very sneaky and they’re very erudite. Unfor-
ALIEN MONSTERS 239
tunately, the academic critics are going to bring along their own brand of
nonsense, but not all these people are bad critics, or academics, or even
critics at all. There are writers, too, people from other fields – movie-makers
and painters and all sorts of people. And what is important is not what
they will like or dislike about science fiction. After all, nobody has to be
bound by what any critic says, inside the field or outside it – what matters
is that once you’ve let an outsider into your private preserve, your own
personal backyard, the place never looks the same to you again. It’s like
letting a stranger into your house – it’s not what the stranger thinks, but
that suddenly you find yourself looking at your own domain with a
difference.
You turn into a stranger yourself. You know, “Oh, lovely rug. Oh,
beautiful chairs. Nice picture … What, no storm windows?” Things are
never quite the same again. This is what’s been happening to me, ever
since I learned I was going to have to teach science fiction this summer.
Everybody knows that you don’t teach science fiction; you just do it. But
you do teach it.
So, I picked on one thing for today. There are dozens of others. There
are good things, wonderful things, too, of course. And I’m not complaining
about things I don’t like just because there are going to be outsiders
analyzing s.f. and watching what we do and criticizing what we do and so
forth. It’s the kind of thing I would complain about anyway. I want the
stuff to be better. I enjoy reading it even more than I enjoy writing it. I
want it to be thrilling, and real, and alive, and about real people. I want it
to be complicated and various and difficult like life – not smooth and predi-
gested and simpleminded, the way nothing is but bad stories. I want my
sense of wonder back again.
And I have it all figured out for the summer, what I’m going to do in
the class, I mean. When this keen, studious, frightening brilliant graduate
student comes up to me and says, “You know – I’ve been reading Savage
Orbit. Now of course I understand the peripety in the last chapter, but I
can’t quite place the mythic resonance of the objective correlative.” Then
I will look at him – and smile, just a little, knowingly – a sort of Ellisonian
smile – and say, “Read it again. Page seventy-eight. Lithium hydroxide?”
And he will be flattened for life!
From Twentieth-Century Science Fiction Authors, ed. Curtis

Smith (St Martin’s Press, New York, 1981)
H. P. Lovecraft
That horror stories are externalized psychology is a commonplace of literary

criticism, but readings based on sex and aggression (the two themes literary
critics have tended to pick up from Freudian psychology) do not quite fit
H. P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft himself warns readers away from interpretations
of his work based on the fear of retribution for specific acts or impulses.
His horrors are (as he says again and again) “cosmic”; he declares the worst
human fears to be displacement in space and time (as in “The Shadow Out
of Time”); and in a letter quoted on p. 388 of L. Sprague de Camp’s Lovecraft:
a Biography (Doubleday, New York, 1975) he speaks of “the maddening
rigidity of cosmic law,” and his insistence on creating a non-fantastic and
materialistic fiction world – i.e. science fiction – all imply a concern with
the conditions of being, not with particular acts or situations. When the
conditions of existence are themselves fearful, when such basic ontological
categories as space and time break down (as does the geometry of space
in so many stories, for example “The Call of Cthulhu”), we are dealing with
what the psychiatrist R. D. Laing calls ontological insecurity (The Divided Self,
Penguin Books, 1965, Chapter 3). If one fears that one doesn’t exist
securely, or that one is made of “bad stuff,” any contact with another
becomes potentially catastrophic.
Everyone shares, to some degree, doubts about the psychological solidity
or reliability of the self and the possibly devastating effects of others on
that self. Lovecraft, although certainly not psychotic, did, according to de
Camp, have a lifelong sense of marked isolation from others, an intense
emotional dependency on things and not people, and the kind of over-
possessive bringing up which makes it reasonable to expect that such issues
would appear in his work. They do – strongly enough to make him an
innovator in weird fiction – for they take precedence over either the beast-
liness of aggression (embodied, for example, in werewolves) or the lethal
possibilities of sexual abandon (e.g. the figure of the vampire), both of
which themes figured largely in nineteenth-century supernatural fiction.
Sex and aggression presuppose a self existing securely enough to have
desires and a relatively non-threatening (or at least limited) Other toward
whom such desires can be directed. Neither an unproblematic sense of self
nor a non-catastrophic other exist in Lovecraft’s work. In his early
H. P. LOVECRAFT 241
Dunsanian fiction he can frolic – but with ghouls! – in the charming (but,
alas, never rewritten or polished) Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath or write
pleasing, optimistic fantasies like “The Strange High House in the Mist,”
but much of his earlier and most of his later fiction are preoccupied with
the foreseen, yet unavoidable, engulfment of a passive, victimized self. If
the narrator is a lucky spectator who escapes with his life, or even sanity,
intact, his peace of mind has been shattered forever. The real point of these
stories is revelation – if the engulfment does not actually happen,
nonetheless it will or it can – and this revelation becomes the central truth
of a universe thus rendered uninhabitable. The cannibalistic other takes
several forms, but the commonest, strongest image, and the one readers
seem to remember best, is the shapeless, monstrous, indescribable “entity,”
(a favorite word of Lovecraft’s) whose most terrifying characteristic is its
structurelessness. (“The Unnameable,” “The Call of Cthulhu,” “Dragon,”
“The Dunwich Horror,” et al.). The obsession with psychic cannibalism
(expressed as physical in one of the flatter stories, “The Picture in the
House”), and the insistence on the indescribableness of the threat all seem
to point to experience so personally archaic it is felt almost as pre-verbal,
as does Lovecraft’s characteristic straining after adjectives. In one of his
best tales, “The Color Out of Space,” the threat is most abstract, its canni-
balism is reported third-hand (through two narrators) and the relatively
low-keyed, realistic setting gets most of the author’s attention.
In only two stories does Lovecraft focus fully on the alternative to
engulfment: loneliness. Selves exist and survive in both tales; they even –
after a fashion – blossom into initiative. But both are figures that appear
in other stories as monsters: in the poetically melancholy “The Outsider,”
a ghoulish walking corpse, and in the very interesting end of The Weird
Shadow Over Innsmouth, a degenerate animal/monster. Both stories suggest
that the menace is in the narrator, a suggestion not only psychologically
truer than the image of the engulfing other that Lovecraft uses elsewhere,
but also one dramatically more interesting.
The view that human relations exist only as engulfment is a serious
limitation on a narrative artist. Toward the end of his life Lovecraft seems
to have been unhappily aware of this; unfortunately he also underrated
his own work and died before it began to be popular. His originality and
his undoubted talent (the eerily parodic autobiography of “The Outsider,”
details like the “gelatinous” voice in “Randolph Carter” or “a warmth that
may have been sardonic” of Innsmouth) is best at its quietest, worst in its
bravely direct but often inadequate attacks on a theme that requires (at
the very least) poetic genius. The very rarity of literary treatments of
Lovecraft’s main theme give his work added interest, however, and his
work will probably always appeal to readers who find his theme compelling.
If he had not died young, he might have moved beyond the kind of horror
story that says This is what it feels like to the kind that adds And this is what
is really happening. The latter moves into tragedy and implied social criticism
(as does, for example, Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House).
Lovecraft concludes “the spectral in literature … is … a narrow though
essential branch of human expression” (p. 106), a comment that might
well describe his work: narrow, not appealing to wide tastes and even
considerably flawed, yet authentic, and by those who find it congenial,
securely loved.
Author’s Note
“Schizophrenia” is not the right word here. I would still maintain,
nonetheless, that Lovecraft’s work is about solitude and alienation from
others. I still love the best of it, like “The Color out of Space” which gains
much from its (relative) understatement, and the dreamlike ritualism that
informs stories like Innsmouth and “The Outsider” (read very effectively in
a recording by Roddy MacDowell).
The Women’s Review of Books, VI:10-11, July 1989
Writers Comment on Their Own Work
Fiction is always a joy, always an obsession and always hard (and gets harder
as I get older). I write first drafts on a typewriter and so am placebound. I
love to see the words and letters sprat down on the page. That is, when I
begin to write. When I continue and get faster, that stops being important.
Writing has to be fitted around everything, everything. Teaching,
friends, business correspondence, love, laundry, food, shopping. I have at
least one or two medical appointments a week, sometimes three or four.
And one marathon week it was five. I have constantly to ration my sitting
and my standing and switch from one pain to another. It’s always a matter
for calculating: shall I continue and know I’ll hurt for a week or two? Or
stop? Or try handwriting? (How bad is my arthritis and will it get worse?)
There are sieges of other illnesses, usually the result of medications, and
then sometimes I can’t write for months. (Two years recently.) So I’m
always juggling illnesses, energies and time. Having to live with disabilities
is like running a small business.
Fiction (sometimes non-fiction) begins with a first sentence or a smell
or someone’s gait or speech. Something inexplicably loaded with meaning.
Sometimes from other books; either I want to do them better or present
an anti-thesis to their thesis. Another s.f. writer1 wrote a book about a
spaceship crashing on an uninhabited planet and the people on it colonizing
the planet. I think this American-imperialist sort of business is morally
dubious. In yet another book an unpleasant message (“There is nothing
left to be done and we must die gracefully”) is given by an old, white-
bearded, saintly patriarch. And my telling my writing class they couldn’t
write a first-person story which ended with the writer reporting her/his
own death. These all came together and I had the beginning of We Who Are
About To, in which the narrator does almost say “And then I died” at the
end of the book. And I gave the message to the most unpopular,
unappealing, unpleasant character I could, the point being that the truth
or falsity of the message does not depend on the attractiveness of the
messenger – but people act as if it did. And then I simply had each character
have at least one confrontation with each other character. And I ended it
with almost the equivalent of “And then I died.”
1 Marion Zimmer Bradley.

If no one published things I wrote, I’d like to think I’d keep on writing
fiction. It does matter to me that the work be published and read. But the
motives for these two things are different motives. I want to get my work
widely distributed and have it kept in print – oblivion is terribly discour-
aging – but that’s not the motive for doing it. The publish/distribute/
review/vanity stuff comes into being after something is completed. I don’t
write with readers in mind exactly (except for some technical habits that
are now more habits than anything else) but rather a sort of ideal shape
for the piece itself. In a way I am my own reader, or rather one part is the
reader, who checks the work against some ideal standard.
Success is knowing in my bones that the statement is true and good if
non-fiction, and if fiction is the proper shape and alive, the right taste, the
right squiggles here and the right stretches out there. That’s the kind of
success that makes me high.
I don’t think of an audience except for things like: translate quotations,
check spelling, check intelligibility of sentences. Non-fiction I write to
educate or persuade, usually, and I cut it ruthlessly. Fiction is different. I
am not (except in the most trivial sense) responsible for anybody’s response
to fiction. The fiction is the way it is, period. I tend to like the most intel-
lectually complex or challenging of my pieces, like “Bodies” and “What
Did You Do During the Revolution, Grandma?” (my favorite) and not like
much emotional, obvious stuff like “Souls.” (All these are from Extra
(Ordinary) People.)
I very much dislike theorists who talk about “women’s” writing. They
invent too much theory too soon on too few examples. We don’t yet know
the tradition of women’s writing in English and far too much remains to
be discovered and understood.2 I also think that these theories about how
different and unique women are move into essentialism and focus on the
one thing we ought to be taking for granted. We are who we are and the
hell with it. They fall into the mythology (the same one) we were trying
to get out of twenty years ago. Critics who talk about this too often are not
writers themselves and don’t know nearly enough how public writing is
and how very grounded in public constructions.
What I am aware of in my own writing, since about 1970, is what Sarah
LeFanu (in a forthcoming book about women’s s.f.) calls “creating the
reader as female.” This reader (implicit, usually) is almost always male in
the world of fiction written in English. I have been sharply aware of that
ever since 1969 when feminism burst over all of us across campus after
campus in the U.S. I want to rewrite the world not in female (as a language)
2 Susan Koppelman’s work is a must here.

WRITERS COMMENT ON THEIR OWN WORK 245
but to females (women, that is). This project is as dependent on the public,
social agreements about fiction and how to do it as is any other way of
writing. I twist it; I hammer at it. Every artist whose aim is not to say the
usual thing better or more intensely or broadly, but to say something else
than the usual thing (the culturally dominant thing) must do this, from
Herman Melville to Virginia Woolf. Literary critics are far too often simple-
minded about this, particularly those critics I look to for most – feminist
critics – no, actually they’re better (book-reviewing language ran away
with me above, see?) but I want more from them.
Theories about women or women’s whatever being Different from
men’s often back into the very femininity we were justifiedly trying to get
rid of fifteen years ago. Throwing established methods away doesn’t usually
work; there has to be some acknowledgment that they do exist – and many
of them are important and useful techniques – what I do, anyway, is a kind
of isometrics – pulling against the tradition and pillaging it – but wearing
one’s pillaged clothes askew – I like that. Of course, no one theory can ever
be applied to every piece of literature, although many literary critics seem
to think so. And, by the way, creating the female reader in the work itself is
not quite the same as writing “for women,” although I try to do both.
(Never mind; this theory is as restricted as all the others, too.)
Writing against obstacles? I’m no judge. I begin to understand why so
many women who’ve made some kind of name for themselves in field X,
Y or Z talk as if they’d experienced no discrimination. It’s because they are
measuring their success against nothing instead of against more success!
They have lived with such solid expectations of lack of success that they
take these for granted; it never occurs to them to call what has happened
“obstacles.” I had a mother who read poetry to me and told me stories from
my infancy on up. She was delighted when I scribbled, and by the time I
learned that I was not ready for a Nobel Prize at age twenty, I was old enough
not be discouraged. I owe her much. My father was fond of popular science.
From him I learned how marvelous the universe was and how to work.
My life’s been hard and painfully discouraging in all sorts of ways but
the writing itself was always a plus. I got modest recognition from 1959
on (and earlier, in writing classes in college). I have had several good editors
but no colleagues with whom I could constitute a sort of group like the
ones in The New York Review of Books, etc. No colleague of mine could take
me with her or him (mostly her) to fame and fortune nor could I do much
for them. I had a lot of trouble publishing some of my s.f. (more as I got
older) – but again, I look at my male colleagues and see mostly commercial
success, which I’ve never had. Or expected. Of course there are obstacles
for women that men never have to face! Let’s have no more confusion,
Joanna (but you see where the confusion comes from).
A young woman s.f. writer, a housewife, wrote me, saying that at her
first convention an established male writer (and some fans) told her not
to tell everyone she was a housewife. It created “such a bad impression.”
If I wrote about heterosexual love and created admirable (that is, “nice”
and important) men I bet my writing income would be tripled. Networking
with women only – which I try hard to do – brings little in fame or money.
I don’t believe I have political obligations as a novelist. I certainly have
them as a human being, a woman and a citizen. Nor are the identities
detachable; but I do not write fiction in order to forward the women’s liber-
ation movement. Of course what I feel strongly about and think important
gets into my fiction, but I have always censored myself as little as I can –
I’m not always aware I’m doing so, of course – and I don’t write fiction to
improve anyone or create feminist models; the whole thing is much less
controllable than that. I fight through, feel through, enword, imagine,
clothe in verbal body (or essay) whatever is fascinating me or driving me
mad at the moment.
The motive for fiction is aesthetic and personal, if those words mean
anything. Non-fiction I sometimes just hack out as well as I can, but fiction
is different. It sometimes feels dangerous – “Oh God, now they’ll know
about me,” or “Uh-oh, they won’t like this one” – and then I know I’ve
got a good one. Often things come to me as technical puzzles which I feel,
thrillingly, I can solve, like “And then I died” in We Who Are About To. I
don’t plan for anything to be feminist at all. (E.g. Kittatinny never began
as a lesbian feminist bildungsroman but merely as an attempt to think up
the most exciting and magical things that I could.) Sometimes the judg-
ments of readers or critics are too narrowly, too simplistically “feminist” –
but even then they usually call attention to something that is a problem
in my writing and I’ve learned a lot that way.
I also spend a lot of time doing feminist criticism and social commentary
and of course this eventually gets into the fiction. And I try more and more
to put even more pressure on the process of writing, the feeling through
and thinking through. It’s hard to describe the process although I’m
intensely familiar with it. One critic called it “piezo-electric” – putting
strains on the usual form and usual style in order that the stress/crack/
straining can loosen meanings. The visible surfaces of life are not enough;
that’s probably why I write so much fantasy, which can provide analysis
as well as meaning and can do laboratory experiments with themes and
people – imaginary ones, of course.
Author’s Note
This piece was written in reply to a request of The Women’s Review of Books.
I was one of many writers they asked to write about writing.
Letters
Sinister Wisdom, 11, fall 1970
The following letter is in response to two articles in Sinister Wisdom, 9: Bertha

Harris’s “Melancholia, and Why It Feels Good” and Irena Klepfisz’s
“Lesbian Literature and Criticism.”
Dear Sinister Wisdom
Someone ought to step between Irena Klepfisz and Bertha Harris. Bertha
is being outrageous, as usual, and she rather deserves the Response, but
Bertha is – in her indirect, dramatized way – right too, especially in one
throwaway line: “the onerous inhibitions lesbian-feminist politics seek to
place on the writer of genuine talent.”
Bertha Harris is the author of a very fine book, the best Lesbian novel
I’ve ever read and possibly the best novel of the last thirty years. Lover.
Lover has been mostly ignored in the women’s press and when it hasn’t,
it’s been called politically incorrect (to my knowledge) though a Feminist
Review of Books reviewer recently rediscovered it.
Why?
Most artistic and literary criticism in the women’s press is very bad. It
reacts to having its P.C. buttons pushed. Much of it is practiced by refugees
from the misuse of the high culture tradition in high schools and colleges
to bully and stupidify the young – this is largely class warfare, owing most
of its virulence to the teachers’ own insecure class position and their defen-
siveness about it, teaching having become (since high schools and colleges
lost their elite character some time in this century) a road to upward
mobility for children of the lower middle class. There is also the problem
of the compensatory Instant Junk Food commercial culture which pretends
to be a popular alternative to the poisoned (and often poisonous) high
culture, and the consequent false split between “art” and “entertainment.”
And of course there is the priggishness of certain revolutionaries who really
wish to escape from individual personality, individual voice, idiosyncrasy,
and any interpretation of life that demands all three. Women (as Phyllis
Chesler once said) have a real terror of difference.
What Bertha is trying to defend, in her exasperated, flamboyantly
offensive, Southern Gothic fashion is (I think) her right to her own artistic
obsessions and her own sense of fantasy – that is, she’s defending in a delib-
erately nasty way (because attacked and exasperated) what every artist
must defend: the absolutely inescapable, crucial fact that expression is

logically and chronologically absolutely prior to analysis.
Bertha Harris has given much of her life to feminist publishing, has
finally cut her ties to a self-sacrificing job in women’s studies which was
extremely harassing and energy draining, has been either ignored or
belittled by the very women’s community she’s been trying so hard to
serve, and has had to watch the stupidest sort of mediocrity praised above
her own work. (I’m not talking about Irena Klepfisz.) I’m not surprised that
she exploded – and knowing Bertha, that she did so elliptically, cryptically,
and as angrily as possible.
Every few weeks someone sends me some incredibly clunky artifact of
women’s culture which falls helplessly on my desk and instantly expires
of sheer unworthiness to live. In between the lousy poems and the excru-
ciatingly dull fairy tales, some singer who can’t stay on key and whose
untrained voice can’t sustain a note for more than two seconds arises and
proclaims: Wooh-mun/will be far-ree-hee-hee! wrenching her diction,
choosing the wrong vowels for her words, letting air escape uncontrollably
past her glottis, and radiantly telling interviewers she is “self-taught” and
therefore innocent of sexism. This isn’t a new, woman’s style, it’s not a
blues style, it’s not any style. It’s simply incompetent.
Incompetence – praised incompetence, revered incompetence – has (I
suspect) driven Bertha Harris mad.
It drives me mad.
Do I want therefore to suppress such efforts? Not at all. They’re
absolutely necessary. (Irena Klepfisz is not talking from the point of view
of incompetence, of course. She’s talking as someone who’s absorbed
everything The Boys teach as “art” and is busy throwing much of it out,
in an extremely sophisticated and analytical fashion.)
But The Boys are still, by and large, custodians of the most technically
rich and adroit literary culture that exists in English, even though it isn’t
the only literary culture (they pretend it is) and it has no monopoly on all
the other virtues. (They pretend it does.)
Books aren’t bad because they include long words and subtle literary
devices. (Surely a classless world will include education in all literary tradi-
tions, even the one now called “high culture.”) They also aren’t – quite
obviously – bad because they don’t.
I’m speaking from Harris’s corner and to Klepfisz because the latter is
being rationally persuasive. I agree with her, and Bertha, instead of arguing,
simply went Stomp Smash Crash Blonk and walked out.
We must try to exercise some sense of where people are coming from
and what they really mean instead of fastening on each individual
statement and walloping it. The latter leads to nothing but aggravated
LETTERS 251
temper, hurt feeling and increased insecurity for everyone. I’m not
suggesting a meaningless “toleration” – only that language is a very
imprecise medium and that 85 percent of most statements are in a code
that really means I want, I need, I feel, my situation is … To consider these as
positive, precise statements of a considered political position is male-style
linear thinking. (And how much more politically incorrect than that can
you get?)
Different needs aren’t betrayals. Incompleteness (Mary Daly’s lack of
awareness of economics, Ellen Moers’ white solipsism) is not deliberate
betrayal, either. Though if we handle these that way long enough, we may
produce plenty of real betrayals. And a large lack of women left to demon-
strate any kind of solidarity with.
Bertha, come home. We love you. A dozen long-stemmed American
Beauty roses await you. The intelligent, rationally persuasive, brilliantly
talented Irena Klepfisz is favorably reviewing Lover. The entire membership
of The Oppressed Lesbian Mothers’ Grim Denim Bikeathon and Depri-
vation Society has donned elegant riding habits and mounted chestnut
mares and is exquisitely dashing about the bois, calling your romantic name.
Come home!
All is forgiven.
Author’s Note
It took the American Right wing twenty-five years to pick up the phrase,
“politically correct” – they’re slow learners. I first heard the phrase in the
mid-1970s. It was used by feminists I know in Boulder, Colorado, as a wry
way of saying “Yeah, I know you may not like this but, dammit, that’s
what I think!” We would chuckle. There were, of course, some real
arguments (if you think that feminism or the Left have a monopoly on
faction, think again) and one of them is spoken to in the letter printed
above. I still think most statements are in code and when people don’t have
a direct stake in a conflict (which they obviously do in some conflicts, like
class) this kind of fake conflict is an important way of finding out what
people want and need and what their situation really is. It was in Boulder
that I attended a Women’s Studies meeting in which everyone was asked
to tell why they’d come into it and (briefly) what issues were important
to them in their lives. What followed this discussion was a lot of clarification:
“So that’s why you always emphasize …” “So that’s why you don’t believe
in … “ We need more of that and by “we” I don’t mean only feminists.
(Don’t tell the Right; if they did this, they’d get much more effective and,
Heavens, we don’t want that!)
Village Voice, October 1972
Dear Sirs
I could not help agreeing with the recent review of Phyllis Chesler’s Women
and Madness (Voice, October 11). After all, you can’t have all these
unlicensed prophetic visionaries running about saying nasty things about
Herod or standing in wells yelling “Alas, Babylon!” As every liberal knows
about every radical, that is going too far.
But then just for a teeny moment, the good doctor blew his objective,
liberal cool sky-high – and in addition unwittingly substantiated what may
be a reason for Ms. Chesler’s radical, lesbian stance (if such it is) – i.e. that
men, when frightened, threatened, or flustered, can be pretty much
depended upon to pull rank and that rank is sexist rank.
I refer to the reviewer’s comment about Ms. Chesler’s supposed lack of
sexual experience outside the clinical situation. Didja ever hear such a
fancy version of the old chestnut,
“All she needs is a good –”
book reviewer?
Author’s Note
Yeah, the reviewer really said what I said he said. Yeah, guys did a lot of
that then. Later Shere Hite published her books and they did it to her. Feh.
Signs, winter 1977
Comment on Helene E. Roberts’ “The Exquisite Slave: The Role of Clothes

in the Making of the Victorian Woman” and David Kunzle’s “Dress Reform
as Antifeminism” (vol. 2, no. 3)
“The Exquisite Slave: The Role of Clothes in the Making of Victorian

LETTERS 253
Woman” and “Dress Reform as Antifeminism: A Response” are not

only interesting in themselves but also typical of a certain kind of current
debate about feminist issues.1 It usually involves three positions: (1) A
common feminist position is to identify an erotic perversion or other bizarre
behavior2 with ordinary social behavior in order to damn the ordinary
social behavior; this is Helene Roberts’ identification of tight-lacing with
the ordinary wearing of corsets in order to damn the wearing of corsets.
(2) The counterposition (often antifeminist, “common sense,” and useful
in supporting the status quo) is to separate the two, calling one “normal”
and the other “abnormal” in order to prove that the ordinary social behavior
is innocent or even trivial. This seems to be David Kunzle’s position: the
ordinary wearing of corsets is entirely different from tight-lacing, and
therefore the corset is not important. In fact, denouncing it was “the
obsession of small minds.” (3) A third position, not present in this debate,
is the identification of an erotic perversion (or other bizarre behavior) with
ordinary social behavior in order to clear both. This is the strategy of would-
be liberals, who wish to indicate that they aren’t judging anybody as long
as they don’t have to talk about the revolting business, whatever it is. It is
sometimes the strategy of erotic minorities prior to the solidarity of liber-
ation movements, in which case it usually doesn’t work. All of these
positions mystify the subject.
I believe Kunzle to be right in insisting that tight-lacing was a genuine
erotic specialization and that the ordinary wearing of corsets was not. But
he seems also to imply that therefore the wearing of corsets was
unimportant. If it was, was dress reform therefore trivial? Did Louisa May
Alcott and Amelia Bloomer have small minds? I would say that nothing
which reifies women is trivial, and that most of Roberts’ statement applies
1 The issues are still with us, I think, but the material discussed in the two essays
(Roberts’ and Kunzle’s) was nineteenth century.
2 I wish here to indicate my own uneasiness with those words and our relative
lack of vocabulary in this area. The words “perversion” or bizarre” seem to me
to gloss over many differences in behavior and attitudes toward behavior. First,
there are erotic specializations, which I do believe to be distinct from more
general likings and dislikings. I would like to speak of specializations without
indicating either value judgment or beliefs about etiology (both of which are
indicated by the word “perversion”). But to speak of specializations alone does
not indicate the social dis-esteem in which such behavior is held. To speak of
“perversions” in quotation marks indicates that I don’t believe such behavior
to be different from non-specialized erotic behavior, which is not the case. To
speak of extreme or bizarre behavior puts us in the same difficulties. Behavior
is “bizarre” or “extreme” because it is considered so by somebody; but such
behavior may not only be considered (in another age or by another group) to
be the acme of health and reason; it may also have nothing at all to do with
erotic specialization.
to ordinary social behavior, not to the erotic perversion of tight-lacing.

Kunzle’s paper seems to me to show insensitivity to what a feminist issue
is; his impatience with the subject suggests that once we have separated
the abnormal from the normal nothing remains to be said. I agree with his
separation, but the rest of his paper seems to me suspect, that is, his
argument that dress reform was often antifeminist (and, by implication,
that feminism was not concerned with dress reform). One could construct
a parallel argument about modern feminism and the subject of cosmetics
that would look just as reasonable and be just as wrong. It’s not surprising
that feminists and sexist conservatives may appear to unite in opposing
something, especially something intended to eroticize women’s bodies.
One cannot conclude from this that the eroticizing of women’s bodies is
not (or was not) a feminist issue.
Kunzle is right to insist that we must stop confusing erotic specialization
with ordinary social behavior. Roberts is muddying the waters when she
uses “exhibitionism” for showing off and “masochism” when she means
self-hatred. I do, however, believe that insisting on a massive fusion of the
two is (in the long run) more productive than saying there is no relationship
at all. For example: Is tight-lacing identical with wearing corsets? If not,
how does tight-lacing relate to the submissiveness, docility, fragility,
delicacy, ladylikeness, etc. that were part of the Victorian ideal of ladies?
Was it an erotic ideal and not a domestic ideal? What traits appear in both
ideals? What were their functions? (Perhaps the erotic ideal was supposed
to prevail until the woman married, when the domestic ideal was supposed
to take over. Both Mary Wollstonecraft and Kate Millett suggest that this
improbable transformation was de rigueur for middle-class brides.) Is the
relationship between sexual specialization and ordinary behavior merely
fortuitous? Or is behavior transformed when fused with eroticism? Or was
tight-lacing a form of self-assertiveness in women (as Kunzle suggests)?
Are the “delicious sensations” enjoyed by some women identical with the
“profoundly unhappy … [who] courted severe injury”?
The relation of extreme behavior to ordinary behavior is not trivial. A
comparable subject in feminist thought today is rape. The conventional,
“common-sense” attitude toward rape is like Kunzle’s toward tight-lacing:
rape is “crazy” and therefore totally distinct from ordinary heterosexual
behavior. Early feminist statements about rape tend to assimilate it to
ordinary heterosexual behavior, but as far as I know nobody has decided
what relation exists between rape, rape fantasies, sexual masochism and
ordinary behavior. And what are we to understand by “ordinary behavior”?
LETTERS 255
Signs, II:4, 1977
Comment on “Prostitution in Medieval Canon Law,” by James Brundage
James Brundage’s article, “Prostitution in Medieval Canon Law” (Summer

1976), was interesting, but Brundage’s definition of prostitution makes
odd reading in Signs.
He speaks of promiscuity as central to the medieval definition of prosti-
tution and adds his own agreement: “There is much sense in this” (p. 827).
He adds, “It may be possible to be promiscuous without being a prostitute”
(why the tentativeness? – of course it is possible), but “it is hardly possible
to be a prostitute without being sexually promiscuous.” Prostitution thus
becomes a subcategory of promiscuity.
Brundage seems entirely unaware of a feminist definition of prostitution
(by no means a new one) that sees as central to it the exchange of sexual
availability for considerations other than erotic ones. In this view, which
was, for example, Emma Goldman’s, marriage is a subcategory of prosti-
tution. Women who trade sexual availability for financial security are
prostitutes even if they do so with only one man and within institutions
socially defined as respectable.
The patriarchal view makes indiscriminateness the test of whoredom.
The inconsistencies of this view (which engage Brundage’s comment in
his article) are perfectly consistent with its central tenet: that a woman’s
sexual availability must be owned by one man, whether an earthly husband
or polygamously by God. (Nuns, who are “brides of Christ,” have no
counterpart in monks, who are not thought of as husbands of the Virgin
Mary.) The real issue here is female independence; hence it is the unowned
woman – the “promiscuous” one – who is at fault, whether she has sexual
intercourse with many men for her own gain or does so for her own
pleasure. Both are equated with the woman who has sexual intercourse
with one man, but outside marriage. All are unchaste.
In the feminist view, trading in sexual availability is prostitution,
whether the customers are human or divine, singular or plural. Female
independence is again the issue, but feminists are for it; thus the statement
“Marriage is prostitution” becomes a parallel to Proudhon’s “Property
is theft,” and thus we have frequent praise of the prostitute (in the
patriarchal sense) as more independent and more honest than the con-
ventionally married woman.
By the way, I do not want to bring up the issue of emotional com-

mitment, which is a separate issue. The fact that a scholar in Signs can
confuse emotional commitment, affection, or love with the plurality or
singularity of a woman’s sexual partners is testimony to the persistence of
the patriarchal view that an unowned woman is as immoral and socially
dangerous as a masterless man used to be.
The inconsistencies Brundage finds in the medieval view of prostitution,
including the sexual double standard of behavior, make perfect sense in
the light of the feminist analysis. Patriarchal sexual morality for women is
“object” morality; only if women are considered to be owned by men does
it make sense to cure a woman of selling herself partially and with her own
control to many men by insisting that she sell herself totally and with no
control over the bargain to one man. The issue is social control of female
behavior; I would add that the social opprobrium attached to prostitution
is (among other things) a way of cancelling out the relative freedom it gives
to some women in a patriarchal society.
In a nonpatriarchal society, the sale of sex would be a possible but not
particularly attractive way of making a living: about on par with being a
yes-man for a business magnate. Neither is personally pleasant. Until we
reach that happy state, let us at least not confuse the issue, which I am
afraid Brundage does.
Author’s Note
I was too hard on Professor Brundage here. He protested in his Reply that
he had meant only to depict the medieval opinion of the matter and not
his own. He did, too, but the subject was too important (and interesting
theoretically) to ignore.
LETTERS 257
Frontiers, IV:2, 1979
Dear Editors,
Judith Schwarz’s article and Lee Chambers-Schiller’s review in Vol. IV, No.
1 of Frontiers are both excellent, yet I find myself in paradoxical agreement
with Anna Mary Wells. Of course Wells’ attitude is nonsense – it resembles
Norman Mailer’s contention that a man who by sheer willpower has
managed to keep his hands off other men’s bodies “has earned” the right
not to be called homosexual. But something is crucially absent from both
article and review, something certainly central to the subject of lesbianism,
and that is erotic intensity between women. Or, in the vernacular, lust.
Schwarz and Chambers-Schiller both de-emphasize it, Schwarz in clear
reaction against the homophobic myth that homosexuals are sex-obsessed
degenerates, and Chambers-Schiller (I think) because she is uncomfortably
aware of possible homophobia in her readers.
Thus we have caring, commitment, affection, couples, emotional
satisfaction (I’m quoting from both), alternative lifestyles, love, devotion,
primary affectional ties, romantic attachments, fulfillment, a life together,
partnership, shared lives, companionship, dyads, relationship, one
“physical love,” one “attraction”, one “sexual intimacy,” one “sexual
expression” (as if sex were always the adjective and never the noun!), and
Carroll Smith-Rosenberg’s “sensual.” It is the prudish Wells who is quoted
as saying “ardent”! How saintly and Victorian it all sounds.
I believe that all women, heterosexual and homosexual, still labor under
a real terror of perceiving or honoring female appetite in a culture which
denies it and punishes us for it. Our heritage, our anti-genital conditioning,
and our adult experience all make it plain that women have no choice but
asexuality or reactive heterosexuality. We are also aware that the latter is
dangerous and dishonorable without love. Even feminists still find it hard
to admit that women are sexual outside of “relationships” – not affec-
tionate, not romantic, not loving, but impersonally and biologically
appetitive. The very idea is terrifying. We don’t even do it in talking about
heterosexual behavior, but homosexual behavior? Two steps backwards and
three to the right!
What’s at stake is not lesbian history; it’s the whole traditional double
standard of sexuality, with its concomitant unfreedom, with its fear of parts
of experience and the consequent fragmenting of identity, and all those
bad things we’re trying to get away from.
Let’s not perpetuate that! Even lesbians (who do not have the same
reasons to be afraid of one another that woman have vis-à-vis men) often
talk as if sex uncontrolled by “love” or “commitment” automatically
precludes decent, civil, or kind behavior. This may be true in sexist situa-
tions (it often is) but surely it’s no longer necessarily true.
The fear is a hangover; let’s do away with it.
Author’s Note
I think this issue is still a live one. The Great Lesbian Sex Wars are one
expression of it, but it’s a heterosexual issue too. The Good Girls versus
Bad Girls split has been commented on by many feminist writers as well
as the historical roots of the split. When a split seems as absolute as this
(for example, the feminist/anti-pornography movement versus the pro-
sex feminists) I don’t think anyone can find out anything by simply
attending to what both sides think are their “issues.” What has to be done
is to become aware of the whole situation and of what particular experi-
ences people are talking from. I don’t think the two sides are actually in
conflict at all, I think that each is demonizing the other, and that nobody
has done the hard work of relating ideas to experiences, i.e. what we used
to call “consciousness raising.” That the trees on a windswept slope lean
in different directions doesn’t tell you a lot about which trees are “right”
and which trees are “wrong,” but if you notice where the giant boulders
are in this region and what eddies of the wind they produce – then you
have a hope of understanding why some lean this way (pornography is all
the same and all evil) and some lean that way (sex is good and you’re all
prudes).
LETTERS 259
Chrysalis, No. 9, fall 1979
Author’s Note
In Chrysalis No. 8 Nancy Sahli had published “Smashing: Women’s
Relationships Before the Fall,” an essay in which she made the important
point that during the last two decades of the nineteenth century a good
many women’s close relationships were damned by the label “lesbian” as
a way of defusing the feminism that was then extremely active in Europe
and the United States. (Neither feminism nor this particular tactic used
against it has disappeared, obviously.) Unfortunately she also claimed that
her examples were “not lesbian” when it seemed pretty clear to me that
some of them were. It seemed to me then (and seems to me now) that the
worst possible way of countering such accusations was to insist that the
women in question were not lesbians, a tactic that left the “charge” of being
lesbian unchallenged, as if a woman’s “lesbianism” somehow invalidated
her feminism. Hence this letter.
Dear Editors,
Nancy Sahli’s essay was delightful. And yet there are things in it that present
a real problem, one that has appeared recently in other women’s publica-
tions: Judith Schwarz’s article on Katharine Lee Bates and Katharine
Coman, and Lee Chambers-Schiller’s review of Miss Marks and Miss Woolley,
both in Frontiers IV:1; and Judith Hallett’s very peculiar essay on Sappho
in Signs IV:3. To varying degrees all these pieces present the appearance of
uneasily backing into a subject that all of them are either soft-pedalling or
(in the case of Hallett) denying outright.
Here is Sahli, insisting that “the” point is not “whether these relation-
ships were sexual, even on an unconscious level” and protesting
Krafft-Ebing’s identification of a woman who dressed in men’s clothing
(in 1884), wrote “tender love-letters” to another woman, and disliked the
idea of relationships with men, as a lesbian. Why? Because her affair was
“platonic.” And again, Sahli protests the identification of Olive Chancellor,
in The Bostonians, as a lesbian since “nowhere in the novel can one find
evidence of any variant sexual behavior.”
Explicit sexual activity seems some kind of Rubicon for Sahli, on the
other side of which lies Heaven knows what. I’m reminded of the hetero-
sexual teenage code of the 1950s in which petting above the waist was
O.K. but petting below the waist imperilled one’s respectability – as if both
activities weren’t erotic! There is, in Sahli’s essay, an obvious and very
appealing delight in the all-female space she describes, a space that’s
innocent, emotional, free, and romantic. And yet it is perfectly clear that
the motivational fuel for all this activity is erotic. Without genuinely erotic
intensity between the women Sahli speaks of, there would be no motive,
no point, to all the courtship except as play-acting, i.e. a substitute or
rehearsal for “real” sex, which is (“of course”) heterosexual. This was not
only the nineteenth-century attitude, the “girl friendship” stage of Josiah
Holland; it persisted into the twentieth century, although the age at which
this state of attachment was supposed to end got earlier and earlier (from
college age to puberty itself) as female solidarity was perceived as more
and more threatening.
Why is genital activity such an absolute dividing line for Sahli, as well
as the other writers I’ve mentioned, all of whom – to some degree – betray
uneasiness with the subject? To apply Sahli’s reasoning to heterosexual
activity would lead to some strange results; are we not to call a nineteenth-
century young woman heterosexual because although she has experienced
passionate attachments to young men, writes them “tender love-letters,”
and does not wish for close relationships with women, she nonetheless
does not engage in specific sexual activity with these men? Surely not.
I’m not sure what the taboo really is here. Is “lesbian” still so loaded a
word that its very presence impugns the innocence, the emotionality, even
the human decency of the relationships Sahli describes? Is sexual activity
itself so guilty or so base or so frightening (heterosexual activity can
certainly be all three for women in patriarchy) that it can’t be allowed –
even as a motive – into Sahli’s paradise of freedom and innocence? (The
title of the essay, “Before the Fall,” is suggestive!)
The sexuality underlying these relationships is not “the” point, but it
certainly is an important point. Some conclusions that can be drawn one
this point, for example, are that people are more erotically various than
they are supposed to be, that sexuality is more complex than it is supposed
to be, and that splitting of erotic feeling into “sexual” and “emotional” is
a product of male training, not female. (What we get is a general anti-
genital training, which men don’t.)
Trying to insist that women are not explicitly sexual or that our relation-
ships with both sexes are “emotional” and not genital does not counter the
exploitation and abuse of women’s heterosexuality by patriarchy, and it
certainly will not prevent the kind of labeling Sahli deplores in her article.
There is no sense in colluding with the patriarchy in this area; our sexuality
ought to be named for what it is, as it is our very great resource. Nor must
we follow implicitly masculine definitions of what sex is (which is what
LETTERS 261
Sahli may be doing) and refuse to acknowledge as sexual any motive or

action that isn’t explicitly physical. Acknowledging lesbian sexuality (one’s
own or other women’s) puts one into direct confrontation with the patri-
archy and subjects one to dangers and discomforts that the college girls of
Sahli’s essay didn’t have to face.
Personal or not, the issue of lesbianism, of erotic feeling between
women, is a kind of Rubicon for feminism. It’s not just that the issue can
be used to divide women or that “lesbian” is a code-word for female
solidarity (as used by anti-feminists, that is). There is something more at
stake here, namely the fashion in which sexuality itself is controlled by
patriarchy and the particular mystifications it undergoes in our contem-
porary form of patriarchy: from binding women to the family and the
economy to the repressive desublimation that occurs more subtly under
late industrial capitalism – the reduction of sex to “only” sex, to a consumer
good, to something mechanical, simple, and manipulable. And the lack of
real choice and autonomy for women in both situations.
What is crucial about woman/woman eroticism is that it (much more
than man/man eroticism) stands completely outside both the heterosexual
institution and the way human sexuality itself has been viewed and
controlled by patriarchal societies. Historically, lesbianism has been totally
“wild,” not only taboo but impossible, non-existent, in the West in a way
that male homosexuality has not. Nowadays male homosexuality seems
to be fairly easily culturally assimilable to a reductive consumer-goods view
of sex. (Read some of the male gay publications on sale at your neigh-
borhood newsstand!) Lesbian sexuality, because it is neither male nor
heterosexually institutionalized, resists such treatment.
One of the things this means is that we are forced to talk about female
sexuality in general in an alien vocabulary. Stress the physical eroticism
of woman/woman ties, and one is “progressing” into the reductive view
of “only” sex (as well as the presumed ugliness and nastiness that
accompany that view in this very anti-sexual society). Stress the emotional
bond, and one is “regressing” into the view of women as asexual creatures
who have plenty of emotions but no independent, real appetite.
It is striking that even in a work intending to demonstrate that women’s
love for women is called names only when it’s perceived as a threat to the
system, Nancy Sahli herself shies away from what seem to me the obvious
erotic components of what she’s describing. If you want examples of
women’s autonomy being slandered by being declared lesbian, Krafft-
Ebing’s German lady and Henry James’ Olive Chancellor are extraordin-
arily bad examples. (James’ own homosexual temperament is something
of an open secret, by the way.) What is so awful about recognizing the
erotic intensity in such women’s behavior?
Here is Harriet Desmoines in the latest issue of Sinister Wisdom (#9): “The
partition of the body that patriarchy tries to effect does not work very well
with [women] … it’s not so easy to isolate the sexual from the nonsexual
[with] … women. The word Lesbian points to the erotic tone of everything
that happens between women … mothers and daughters … sisters …
students and teachers … girl friends. And if … that makes you feel as
nervous as it makes me feel, then I think we can agree that the energies
we generate between ourselves … are tabooed in patriarchy because those
energies are powerful – and scary – and it’s about time we tapped into
them.”
“Feminist Review,” The New Women’s Times,

February 29–March 13 1980
Dear Editors,
Mary Sojourner’s review of Phyllis Chesler’s With Child is a lovely piece,

and yet – oh dear! It’s not just that Mary Sojourner knows so little about
the realities of publishing (or seems to), the difference between fame and
success and what female “really” means (some of this latter information
can be found in Chesler and Goodman’s Women, Money, and Power, Bantam,
1977); it’s that her ignorance (?) is shared by so many, and is so American
and so very female.
E.g. “Had this writing appeared in soft-cover, for a fair price, we might
have admired her courage …” “We have … access to publication” “I resent
paying $9.95 to male publishers” and “WOMEN are hot stuff right now.”
1. The real (media-created) “stars” of feminism must make their livings
via commercial publishers because they are otherwise unemployable. Fame
is absolutely distinct from (and often detrimental to) success. People
magazine recently informed us that Germaine Greer was teaching perma-
nently in Oklahoma at a relatively low-ranking and unknown university
at $15,000 a year (the same salary a young woman in her middle twenties
LETTERS 263
recently got here in Seattle for her first full-time job). Better then welfare?
Sure, but what is Greer doing in Nowheresville at a salary not enough to
put her financially into the middle class? (A male colleague of mine recently
commented about his own $20,000 a year, “Well, it’s O.K. if you’re single.”)
Eating, I suspect. For example:
2. Writer Star A, teaching for a year in order to save money to live on
for the next one (at a salary like Greer’s) found out simultaneously that
she had a serious illness and no medical insurance (oddly enough) though
medical insurance is standard in academic contracts.
3. Academic Star B, whose honors in the profession are dazzling, dislikes
her tenured location but has never moved. Why? “Too radical,” I was told;
“No one else will employ her.”
4. Writer Star C, having sold the paperback rights to a now published
and well-known book on condition that there be a previous hardcover
sale, spent three years trying to find a hardcover publisher. One after
another refused the book, despite the large guaranteed income (half the
paperback advance) such a sale would automatically bring in.
5. The income from internationally famous Writer D’s paperback sales
are still going to her hardcover publishers after five years to earn back the
hardcover advances; meanwhile D is getting nothing from two of her books
and is trying to make a living farming.
6. The independent film company that wants to make Rubyfruit Jungle
into a (relatively inexpensive) film still can’t raise enough money to do so.
7. Star E, bringing out a monumental feminist non-fiction work, speaks
bitterly of spending three solid years “rescuing” the book from its publisher.
“WOMEN” may be hot stuff, but feminism isn’t and anything lesbian is
practically unpublishable.
Most publishers will not publish a book in paperback without a previous
hardcover sale; not only are original paperbacks not reviewed in the trade
and have no guaranteed sale to libraries, but also most publishing houses
survive on that 50 percent of the paperback income (advance and royalties
forever and ever amen) that is standard in the trade.
Most commercial publishers have, in the last ten or so years, been bought
by giant conglomerates. If you resent paying $9.95 for a book (a low price;
look around!) note that you are not even paying it to “male publishers;”
you’re paying it to Gulf and Western, American Express, CBS, RCA, Xerox,
Raytheon, or whatever other giant has just gobbled up the publisher in
question. The gory details are in Chrysalis 8 (Summer 1979), Celeste West’s
“The Literary Industrial Complex.”
Indeed we do need our own publishing and distributing businesses, but
are they growing? Diana Press no longer publishes. Women in Distribution
(distribution is the real problem, financially) has just vanished.
If feminist writers are not to depend on other jobs (as I do) – and some
of them can’t since they are now infamous – they must earn a living by
writing. Women’s presses do not provide a living wage. And I know of no
feminist writer who, after an initial best-seller (like Women and Madness
or Small Changes), found publishers lining up to beg for her next book,
although that sort of thing is commonplace enough when non-feminist
writers produce best-sellers. (I would bet that Marilyn French, whose
The Women’s Room was a real word-of-mouth success, will find the same
thing happening to her.) The “star” pattern is really more and more
publicity, more and more criticism (both inside and outside the women’s
community) and more and more trouble finding publishers or jobs, with
all the publicity never, somehow, “paying off.” That adrenaline rush is
really insecurity.
But then feminists are not supposed to succeed. Neither are women,
period. Neither is feminism. Audre Lorde told us all so at the Modern
Language Association annual meeting in San Francisco three (?) years ago.
In fact, what she said was, if I remember, that we were not even supposed
to survive. Publicity, glamor, visibility, the big American shuck, is not
success. It isn’t even money. (By the way, the college lecture/performance
market, once the mainstay of feminists, has all but vanished.)
If we are to reach each other, one of the things that must go is the illusion
that some women have “made it.” What looks from afar like Manhattan
myopia and TV adrenaline is really the knowledge that one has worked
and worked only to acquire a few more insecure privileges, an exhausting
toe-and-fingerhold on a cliff-face with large numbers of men (including
one’s publisher) throwing rocks on one’s head from above. Having sand
thrown at you from below while female voices yell “Cop-out!” doesn’t
improve the balance.
I am talking, of course, about real feminists and mean this as an addition
to Mary Sojourner’s piece not as a quarrel. Writing, like acting, is an
unbelievably badly paid profession for all but the very few – and those few
are not Phyllis Chesler but Rosemary Rogers. The glamor of publicity
disguises that nasty fact.
If anything, I suspect that Mary Sojourner feels guilty because as a white
woman and a middle-aged one (why middle-aged? that I don’t get) she is
not really oppressed enough.
Hollow laugh from Stars A through E. And me. And Chesler too. Heh.
Ho. Huh. Ha. We all are, quite enough. Which, I should think, is the whole
point, unless one wants (as I do not think Sojourner does) to sternly send
Chesler et al. back to welfare or Woolworth’s, in which case there will be
no books from anyone past the age of, say, thirty-odd. And soon no books
from anyone, period.
LETTERS 265
I understand the psychology of “I’m different” which Sojourner is

deploring, and yet Phyllis Chesler is extraordinary. Extraordinarily
tenacious, for one thing. Extraordinarily unkillable. Extraordinarily hard-
working and extraordinarily underpaid.
Aren’t we all?
Author’s Note
Writing pays very badly. Writing pays very badly. Writing pays worse now
than it did then. If you do it, do it for love of it. You may even make a
living at it and you may not. (If you do what Danielle Steel does, you
probably will.) This issue is very American, i.e. the idea that celebrities
have real lives and the rest of us don’t. Publicity doesn’t necessarily mean
power or money and unfortunately believing that the “real” news is about
celebrities leaves us all totally ignorant of the forces that are truly hurting
us, and truly shaping our lives.
Gay Community Center Newsletter, July 1980
Dear GCC,
Your Pick a Color essay in Vol. II No. 6 was a fine idea. My only objection
is that “stylish and masculine” as it is, it doesn’t go far enough. I’d like
therefore to pass on an additional signal system. It works with band-aids
worn in various places and coloured with laundry-marking pens. (These
are not only cheaper than handkerchiefs but can be changed to suit the
wearer’s mood.)
Yellow, right knuckle: in closet at work, terrified of losing job

Yellow, left knuckle: out at work, terrified of never getting job
Yellow, across nose: has just lost job, plain terrified
Black, right knuckle: aspiring bank executive, &c., doesn’t under-
stand why America hates queers
Red, left knuckle: does understand why but is sick of explaining it to
aspiring bank executives, &c.
Green, forehead: wants to be held and comforted non-sexually but

would rather die than let anyone know
Green, chin: wants to hold and comfort another non-sexually but
what sort of pervert would get off on something that ridiculous, anway?
Orange, earlobe: enjoys conversation but can have that with
straights, so why go to a bar for it?
Orange, across mouth: likes conversation too, but feels shy and silly
and wishes someone else would start it
White, nose: is afraid of getting old and ugly
Pink, chin: resents gay community’s sexism
Gray, chin: resents gay community’s consumption and classism
Brown, chin (white person): resents gay community’s racism
None, chin (person of color): resents gay community’s racism
Rainbow, across both eyes: wants to be “apolitical”
Is afraid of not being popular, feels lonely, knows he’s really not
good-looking, and secretly suspects his penis is too small: no band-aid
necessary (condition assumed).
I realize the above is not exhaustive. I am afraid I cannot provide a lesbian

code as the other lesbians I know seem never to have developed an efficient
signal system and rely almost entirely on an archaic method of communi-
cation called “talking”. I hear they are also into something called
“touching”. But such accounts are hardly credible, being neither modern,
efficient, masculine, nor stylish.
Science-fiction Studies, #2 = 7:2, July 1980
Women and SF : Three Letters
Author’s Note
First, Susan Gubar wrote a good essay about women’s science fiction. It
was published in Science-fiction Studies. Then I wrote to the journal saying
LETTERS 267
Good-oh and added stuff (letter one). Then Linda Leith wrote back and
said things about my letter (you want to make men secondary, men and
women are opposites which need to be reconciled, etc.). So I wrote another
letter (academics enjoy this sort of thing). The “Flasher” books to which I
refer in letter two was part of an essay I wrote, published in Science-fiction
Studies in 1980. It is available (if you want to find it) in To Write Like a
Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction, a collection of my essays
published by Indiana University Press in 1995. The title of the essay was
“Amor Vincit Foeminam: The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction.”
* * * *
Susan Gubar’s essay was so good that I’d like to add a few details which
would enrich Gubar’s case. (1) Rockets are seen by fans not as “womblike”
(p. 17) but phallic. Vonnegut thinks so, too, in his bitter satire “The Great
Space Fuck.” (2) In Juniper Time Wilhelm is more explicit and political than
Moore: the heroine pretends to decipher an “alien” code which is, in truth
a human (male) fake. Her real “alien” allies are those complete outsiders
in the white, male, technological world: native Americans. (3) The
ultimate, conscious use of woman-as-alien is of course Tiptree’s “Houston,
Houston. Do you Read?” in which the “alien” women, asked “What do
you call yourselves?” by the male narrator, answer matter-of-factly,
“mankind.” It’s a pity the focus and length of Gubar’s article precluded
exploring these examples.
But Gubar is thoughtless in using the word “tradition,” which implies
that the writers in question have read and been influenced by each other.
One would have to prove such connections, which in some cases (e.g.
Lessing) might be difficult. I suspect that until the late 1960s we had not
a tradition, but scattered cases of parallel evolution. One must not assume
a purely literary ancestry for phenomena.
Especially not in SF, where the traditions are derived primarily from
science itself and only secondarily from literature, especially literature
before Verne and Wells. Gubar’s feminism alerts her to the use of “alien”
= woman in women’s SF, but there is another reason why women are not
as innocently gleeful about technology as so many men in the field. Samuel
Delany’s “gravitic” metaphor (which he calls the central metaphor of SF
in his The American Shore [Dragon Press, Elizabethtown, N.Y., 1978], p. 184)
may be unusable by women – or other outsiders. In this “gravitic” metaphor
a story typically progresses via machinery or other means (in The Star Maker
a form of astral travel) from the Earth’s gravitic field (metaphorically:
realities, values, possibilities) into space (weightlessness, hence an absence
of a system of values or expectations about reality) and from there to a

different gravitic field and a different world (reality, value, possibility). We
have here Darko Suvin’s “cognitive estrangement” made concrete. We
have also, by the by, the origin of SF’s horror at life underground (remember
the fuss about fallout shelters in the 1950s?) To live under the surface of
the Earth is to capitulate completely to gravity. In Forster’s “The Machine
Stops” the metaphor is a direct descendant of Plato’s Fable of the Cave,
given Forster’s classical education and fascination with ancient Greece: the
emergence onto the surface of the Earth is an emergence into static, timeless
truth. But in SF emergence from underground leads typically not to a
timeless union with nature and truth but to a leap upward into a night sky
filled with stars. Plato’s tale represents truth as static; the SF metaphor
reminds us that the Sun is only one star among many. Truth is plural.
But what if the original gravitic field is not “ours” at all, just as the status
of “human” is not “ours”? Tiptree’s use of technology is always ironic, and
her use of the gravitic metaphor sometimes hideously so (as in “A
Momentary Taste of Being”). Why go looking for cognitive estrangement
when we live it out every day on what is supposedly our home planet?
Uncomplicated, unironic use of either the alien or the gravitic metaphor
may be the mark of the Insider author: Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke (it does
not matter that the aliens are “good,” as in Clarke: they are still Other).
Perhaps a similar use of the End of the World story may also betray the
Insider; when the post-Holocaust society of Walk to the End of the World
starts to crumble, the heroine (unlike Aldiss) does not grieve, but flees in
relief. The world is ending. Ah, but whose?
* * * *
Adrienne Rich writes that when women turn their faces to each other,
they are often perceived as turning their backs on men. It is a common-
place of feminism that women must make women their first priority: Linda
Leith instantly makes the leap (common to anti-feminist polemic also) to
a role-reversal. Why should Susan Gubar’s reversing “the degradation of
women’s secondariness” mean the degradation of men? It is Leith who
insists on this.
She also seems to equate the men in my Flasher books with all men,
which I do not. If I had, would I have quoted Philip Slater and Michael
Korda or discussed pro-feminists like Frederik Pohl, Theodore Sturgeon,
and Mack Reynolds, or included in my list of feminist Utopias Samuel
Delany’s Triton? My contempt is for the Flasher books themselves. (One
may measure the damage done by the Flasher myth by noting that some
of the authors cited in my paper have done good work elsewhere.) The
LETTERS 269
weakness that underlies the myth is not something I wish to gloat over,
but rather the only aspect of those vile fictions that in the least redeems
them. If “vile” sounds strong, read them. Or read the April 1980 issue of
Mother Jones, devoted to articles on the pornography whose pervasive
theme is male conquest of powerless women; there is even a sequence that
corresponds exactly to the Flasher stories: men in Star Trek uniforms meet
naked “women’s libbers,” overawe them with the size of their penises, and
then set them to performing docile services like ironing clothes and fellatio.
Consumers of such fantasies obviously don’t believe in the power of the
penis; if they did, they would not pay to be reassured.
If none of the Flasher books envisions a womanless world, that may be
because much great literature has already done so, for example Moby Dick.
It may also be that such a vision would now be seen as homosexual by
authors and readers alike, a phenomenon taboo in the sexist terms of the
myth itself. The feminist Utopias, having broken the cultural imperative
of male dominance, have no qualms about breaking others; thus the
Lesbianism of the separatist stories and the sexual permissiveness of the
rest. I am not a separatist in the sense that I envision the perfect future for
our planet as a manless one – such an eventuality seems to me undesirable,
immoral, and totally impossible – but I do believe that crucial to the process
of women becoming primary to themselves is the possibility of becoming
able to imagine such a state. (The two most intransigent stories in the
feminist group, Motherlines and “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?,” are
written by happily married women, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s
Herland fits right into this group.) Far from reveling in a role-reversal, none
of the feminist Utopias show women as dominant over men (such situa-
tions are confined to the Flasher books, all written by men). And the
all-female feminist Utopias provide explicit and clearly stated reasons for
keeping men out: rape, battery, the threats thereof that restrict women’s
freedom and safety, and the male monopoly of activity in the public world.
(The resemblance to our world is not coincidental.) It is, of course, up to
particular men in the real world whether they will continue to permit or
practice such atrocities or whether they will fight them.
Leith’s comment strikes me as apolitical and hence confused. In what
way can the members of a big-brained, weakly dimorphic, and highly
plastic species be considered “opposites”? If men and women constitute a
polarity, like day and night, how can such utterly different creatures be
“reconciled” and to what? To being so different? But they already are
different!
Unlike Leith, I assume – and I think Gubar does – that the sexes constitute
classes whose relation is political. This means that before “integration” can
occur there must be conflict – a prospect Leith is, I suspect, trying to short-
circuit. Talk about polarities and integration when the issues are
exploitation and abuse, physical, economic, and psychological, is a way of
avoiding conflict. Unfortunately such tactics also avoid change, which can
occur (and has occurred) only through conflict. I am impatient with Leith’s
talk of biological determinism for the same reason. It resembles the old
questions (which are being revived, by the way) as to whether blacks are
stupid or the poor shiftless, and if so, is it right to give school-children hot
lunches and prevent the survival of the fittest? Such talk can prevent
change for years – centuries, if we’re persistent enough.
The relation between women and Capitalism is the subject of a good
book, For Her Own Good by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
(Anchor, 1979). As for the relation between women’s SF and technology,
I was attempting in my earlier essay to distinguish between the attitudes
of those who imagine they own the world (in some sense) and those who
don’t, but there may be more to the matter; Marc Feigen Fasteau’s The
Male Machine (Dell, 1976) is a good book with some insights on this point.
I do apologize for inadvertently implying that Darkover is a feminist
utopia in The Shattered Chain; I meant, of course, the Guild of Free Amazons,
which shares the characteristics of the other feminist utopias (classlessness,
concern with children, sexual permissiveness, etc.).
Written to Venom, November 27 1981
Author’s Note
Venom: the Magazine of Killer Reviews appeared in 1981, a sportive little publi-
cation perpetrated by science fiction writers who remained anonymous
somewhere in San Francisco. To be published in Venom, an author had to
write a pseudonymous and nasty review of one of her or his own works.
Then one was allowed to submit killer reviews of others’ work. Unfortu-
nately, by that fall, the magazine editors, overburdened with work, had
quit publishing it and so this letter was never printed. I still think Elizabeth
Lynn was involved. She won’t say.
LETTERS 271
Dear Vipers,
Another of those forced marriages of brutality, gynecology, and Raymond

Chandler came my way only two days before Venom appeared, one “Dark
Angel” by Edward Bryant. In this one a witch (get that? that’s what all this
talk about Women’s Lib comes to; give a woman any power at all and [a]
she’ll be irrational and dangerous and [b] up to no good) makes pregnant
the man who got her pregnant twenty years before and then abandoned
her. In Myrna Lamb’s play “What Have You Done For Me Lately?,” which
uses the same plot device, the man is a U.S. Senator who’s led a public
campaign against women’s right to abortion (after abandoning the woman
– a doctor, Edward, not a witch – who nearly died in labor with his child).
But everybody knows what Women’s Lib really wants – brutality,
viciousness, and a prose style stolen from a Bogart flick, a bad one. “He
hurried. I was dry and it hurt. I made him use spittle” (p. 163). “Everybody
can have one mistake, I told myself. One only. I suddenly wanted to leave
the elevator, the hotel, Phoenix. I didn’t want to go back to Denver. I
wanted to go anywhere else” (p. 171). Myrna Lamb provides her male
character with an abortion, after an elaborate discussion of the ethics of
abortion; Ed knows that’s sentimentality and provides his with no birth
canal and a pregnancy nobody but he and the witch can see. Yeah, I guess
they get some weird kick out of it, but this one’s got me so mad I can’t
even be witty about it. He’s got our number all right; what we really want
is to stop wearing dresses, take out other kids’ eyes when we’re a kid (this
is put in to show you how evil the witch is – and it’s her father who reproves
her), and act out Guess Who’s worst impulses. At least I assume they’re
his worst impulses. When not giving us such dazzlingly verisimilar glimpses
of the liberated future, Bryant can write reasonably decent stories.
But not about us.
About Venom: re A.D.’s Afterlife’s (too many s’s?) review. In the midst
of this elegant tour-de-force there is one small mote: Russ has never
attained the pinnacle of academic success; no Dr., she. This fact rather
pleases me.
I look forward to future issues.
Who Goes Where

(not “There” dammit)
Sojourner, 10:8, June 1985
Dear Editors
Time and time again, feminist talk about sex betrays the influence of
homophobic and sexist assumptions that cling to us and of which we’re
not aware. Ruth Hubbard’s “There Is No ‘Natural’ Human Sexuality” (April,
1985) betrays this process. After quite accurately describing the biases of
contemporary “sex” education, she proceeds to a surprisingly destructive
series of inaccuracies and illogic.
First, to erase any distinction between sexual desire and affection serves
nothing but an anti-sexual attitude already far too prevalent. In our cultural
tradition women have been taught for centuries (or have retreated into
the idea as an illusory protection against male sexual exploitation) that sex
is love – or ought to be – and that sexual appetite uncontrolled by love is,
by its very nature, exploitative, cruel, mechanical, or debased. In such a
situation the simple observation that sexual arousal is a basic biological
appetite, varying in strength in people and varying in what can evoke it
but still not interchangeable with affection, emotional intimacy or “sensu-
ality” like having one’s back rubbed or hair stroked, still seems to send
many of us into a flurry of defense. Some women insist that emotional
intimacy is the only permissible cue for desire, some argue that “long-term
relationships” are morally privileged, and some – like Ruth Hubbard –
simply use the terms “love”, “sexuality,” and “affectional relationship” as
if they were interchangeable.
Those who can honor both desire and affection may satisfy their sexual
appetites inside a love relationship or outside, or do both, but they know
that the different hungers, sometimes mingling (in some people, at some
time) and sometimes separate (in some people, at some time) are capable
of all sorts of combinations, and are not identical or necessarily fused. Nor,
excluding coercion and violence, is one form of sexual satisfaction morally
privileged over others.
And what on earth is so wrong with that?
It seems that for many of us it’s so wrong it still mustn’t be perceived
even when it falsifies the facts. For example, Hubbard’s citation of Kinsey
is totally incorrect. Kinsey never said, in his research, that we can love
people of either sex. In fact, his restricting his research to genital acts leading
to orgasm (not “love”) was used by many critics of the day to pronounce
his statistics invalid. To go further, he didn’t even show that most Americans
LETTERS 273
were capable of same-sex contact leading to orgasm. What he did find was
that a surprisingly large number of American men had had at least one
homosexual contact leading to orgasm. (These findings were so shocking
at the time that they were used to cast doubt on his methodology and on
the sheer possibility of studying sexual behavior.) Those who were substan-
tially homosexual in their behavior were a minority (in both women and
men), those predominantly homosexual a still smaller minority, and those
exclusively homosexual in their behavior an even smaller minority.
Defending a minority by assimilating them with the majority is no
defense, yet Hubbard’s view of homosexual people at once insists that
everyone is homosexual (sort of) and simultaneously that nobody is really
exclusively homosexual at all – in short, that there is no minority.
This may look “liberal” at first glance, and yet Hubbard’s logic leaves a
lot to be desired. For one thing, when some people risk extreme social
punishment (ranging from continual harassment to jail to incarceration in
the back ward of a mental hospital to the risk of losing job, family, housing,
and even life), it seems rather peculiar to call their behavior a “choice” in
any ordinary sense. And when some people report that they had different
feelings and desires from others at a very early age, and felt “different”
because of this, Hubbard flatly dismisses their account of their own experi-
ences with absolutely no justification except that she just doesn’t believe
them. Why? Apparently because most people are capable of desiring
partners of both sexes! She then goes on to talk about theories of the genesis
(I think she means the channeling) of sexuality in “men” and “women,”
ignoring the applicability of these theories to the minority of people, who
don’t exist anyway because the theories she talks about as applying to the
majority don’t fit this minority.
What a muddle!
Alas, we’re just as far as ever from accepting genuine human diversity.
I’m reminded of the liberals of the 1930s onward who tried to advocate
an end to “discrimination” (as the phrase was then) by insisting that
“Negroes” were just like “us,” or the fighters against anti-Semitism who
have argued that Jews are “just like everybody else.” To defend the rights
of a minority by asserting that it doesn’t exist is – to put it mildly – self-
defeating. It also makes the minority in question wonder if friends like that
are not worse than enemies. Within minorities there are people who share
almost nothing more than that they are hated by the same bigots; there
are those who share more; and there are those who hate each other’s guts
for in-group reasons that outsiders can’t even understand. To go even
further, arguing that because a Jewish person could have (in infancy) been
raised as a Gentile and then would have exhibited Gentile cultural traits
and Gentile beliefs, that an adult Jewish person is in some sense a Gentile,
or is just like a Gentile, or ought not to be persecuted because she or he

could have been a Gentile, is to talk nonsense. Yet Hubbard seems to be
making the exact same argument about homosexual people. Because
sexuality is plastic does not mean that once sexual cues and preferences
have been established they can then automatically be treated as still plastic,
and yet this is exactly what Hubbard’s non-logic implies.
If I go on at such length about Hubbard’s essay, that’s because in
feminism (and politics) in general an awful lot of us are “progressing”
backwards. “Feminism” now means anything you want it to mean. It’s
announced in quite a few places that equality between women really means
that everybody’s opinion is equally valuable and equally descriptive of the
world as it is, which is grotesque (is Phyllis Schlafly’s opinion as valuable
as, say, Adrienne Rich’s?); that women’s sexuality is loving and personal
while men’s is violent and exploitative; that everybody’s sexuality is (or
ought to be) fused with love or really is love; that pornography is the
rootcause of patriarchy; or, worst of all, that feminism is a lifestyle instead
of being an activity in the public world – and so on.
Hubbard looks so wise, compassionate, and white-haired in her picture
that I felt guilty about writing this letter, but I looked in the mirror, noted
my own wrinkles and gray hair (the wisdom you’ll have to decide for
yourselves) and hardened my heart. The economic and political reasons
for the scramble to retreat from feminism are pretty obvious – but must
we simply give up during a period of reaction, or can we do something
about it?
The Women’s Review of Books, II:9, June 1995
Dear Editors
Bless us, another Sadistic Lesbian novel! Ildiko de Papp Carrington doesn’t
seem to recognize the genre to which Joyce Carol Oates’ Solstice belongs.
This may be fortunate as far as she’s concerned (not having read all the
other ones has kept her from a very bad taste in the mouth after reading
LETTERS 275
this one) but it’s also unfortunate, since her lack of familiarity with the
tradition keeps her from spotting a newly malignant member of this very
nasty and ultimately anti-feminist tribe and so warning the rest of us.
Lousy Lesbian Novels are the one kind that commercial publishers will
readily buy and handle, the other being the Ridiculously Awful sort (like
the unreal silliness of Kinflicks, that strange combination of falsely comic
sex and real mother/daughter suffering).
The Loathsome Lez began in the United States in the 1920s (Lillian
Faderman traces the genre’s development in her Surpassing the Love of Men),
usually converging with the Older Woman Has Mysterious Power Over
Younger plot. What de Papp Carrington describes in her review is yet
another cautionary tale about how awful the whole repulsive business is.
Women who love women really hate women. Trust another woman,
especially if your feelings towards her are sexual, and she will do ghastly
things to you. Desire as betrayal. Love is abjection. And so on.
Oates has been long obsessed with this kind of unreal violence. I would
protest against it as a novelist, and as a feminist I detest it. Oates often
seems to have accepted the patriarchal view of the world as one in love
with victimization and violence. As a lesbian woman, I’m afraid I see Solstice
as just another piece of anti-woman and anti-lesbian propaganda. If I had
not read all those other books and plays (and recognized them in
Faderman’s description in Carrington’s review) I might even have accepted
its view of relations between women as, if not realistic, at least imagina-
tively original. But when something is the fiftieth or eightieth or hundredth
of its kind, one becomes skeptical.
Women are not angels. Even lesbians aren’t, believe it or not! There are
some women who are sadistic toward other women, some lesbian women
who are also. But what Carrington describes isn’t like any possible human
being I’ve ever met or even heard about in my fifty years of experience in
this world, though it does bear a suspicious resemblance to literary fantasies
of a certain florid and awful kind.
De Papp Carrington’s review concretizes, for me, a disturbing tendency
in The Women’s Review of Books. To have a publication “not restricted to any
one conception of feminism” is to have no clear standards for feminism
and hence no clear standards at all. There is a lot of this eclecticism lately
in “feminist” quarters. If the Review did have its own definition of feminism,
it might have rejected Carrington’s review as one that did not take enough
cognizance of any kind of feminist, or economic, or historical, or social-
analytical context. In fact, as far as I can tell, Carrington’s review of Oates’
new book might appear in many non-feminist literary/academic journals
without a word being altered. Why was it published in The Women’s Review
at all?
I’m not calling for anger in such reviews, or platitudes about how rotten
men are, or anything that illogical or fruitless. But if there is no broader
context (as Linda Gordon’s “When Biology Became Destiny” does so
admirably have) why print something in a journal expressly designed to be
feminist? Criticisms like the Oates review are in very long supply in
academia, and, to my mind, do not place Oates’ symbolic activity, or her
claim that feminist novels are narrow, in any kind of broader view.
There is enormous counter-activity going on right now in feminism;
“anything goes” means that anything vaguely about women is given the
same priority as anything by women, and that anything vaguely “for”
women (or maybe not – isn’t that what “objectivity” means?) is fine.
May your editorial board acquire some flaming radicals, bomb-toting
crazies, “sadistic” lesbians, and iconoclastic marxists. It’d be the making of
the Review!
Author’s Note
Here we go again. Women are worse than men. Lesbianism as torture.
Lesbianism as a Strange Power Exercised by a Sophisticated Older Woman
Over an Impressionable Girl – something I would dearly love to have if
only I could find out where to get it, but unfortunately the demand seems
to exceed the supply, if there’s any supply at all besides the homophobia
of seventy years ago. (I’m thinking of the Broadway play, “The Captive,”
presented in 1926.) As I recall, the reviewer (above) found the book
baffling; unfortunately I didn’t. Anglo-Saxon nations are crazy about
sexual matters; it’s so sacred that anything but the One True Way to Do It
is unspeakably vile and awful. Even I believed enough of this not to notice
that I’d used the word “sadistic” above to describe what is not a certain kind
of sex or sexual fantasy. What I meant was cruelty and treating other people
badly (which is not negotiable, I think).
Why are heterosexuals so weird?
LETTERS 277
The Women’s Review of Books, III:6, March 1986
Author’s Note
The mystification of money and power issues in the United States (and
elsewhere, of course) seems to me often to take the form of complicated,
even hair-splitting analyses of abstractions like “justice,” “fairness,” and so
on, which are discussed as if they were extremely difficult to define and
so abstruse that the discussion is elevated into a Heaven of ideas where
such ordinary things as human beings and concrete events in their lives
don’t exist. As I recall it, Gender Justice was a Right-wing attempt to confuse
all of us by insisting that the most minimally nominal “freedom” was
identical with real freedom. Nope.
Dear Editors
The concept of “liberty” over which Rosemary Tong spends so much time
in her review of Gender Justice (January 1986) is a fake; it doesn’t exist
today except for a very small minority of the rich and powerful (virtually
all of whom are white men) and it never did.
The liberty of the free market, which is what the book’s authors are
talking about (it’s enjoying an ideological revival today, for obvious political
and economic reasons), never applied to the peasants who endured
appalling conditions in the factories of the early Industrial Revolution
because they’d been kicked off their land. Nor does it apply today to giant
corporations, multinational banking, massive advertising, and a situation
in which, of the largest 100 economic powers in the world, 57 are countries
and 43 are multinational companies. (One-third of world trade now consists of each
multinational company trading with itself.)
We live today in a world in which oligopolies (a few giant corporations
which control the majority of the market) raise prices in good times and
bad, prefer large per-item profits on a low volume of sales to smaller unit
profits on many more sales, and shift the social costs of pollution, ecological
disaster, poverty, unemployment, aging and disability to everyone else –
anyone else – in the name of “liberty.”
This isn’t liberty. It’s piracy. Private piracy. In such a situation groups
are created onto whom the social costs of big business can be shifted,
especially the cost of overwork, unemployment, poverty and consequent
popular anger: racism, sexism, compulsory heterosexuality (which ensures
enforcement of the marriage contract, which – as French feminist Christine

Delphy writes – is a labor contract), what we now call age-ism, able-ism,
the persecution of fat people, especially fat women, and so on.
The liberty of the marketplace is, and historically has been, an excuse
for the worst kind of vampirism. Despite the enormous inequities between
men sanctioned by this (very self-interested) version of “liberty,” the
inequities between men and women are worse: globally, women do two-
thirds of the world’s work and receive 10 percent of the world’s pay.
Gender Justice lies about civitas: women in the labor force in the U.S. are
paid (on the average) one-third less than men for anywhere from twenty
to forty hours more work – the famous double job, of which the authors of
Gender Justice seem totally ignorant. In 1976 60 percent of working women
(52 percent in 1962) were in just four occupations: clerks, saleswomen,
waitresses and hairdressers.
This isn’t liberty. This is force and fraud. Private force and private fraud.
That most of us are taken in by it to some extent isn’t surprising when it
bombards us daily, but I still wish Ms. Tong had either spent her review
time on something more fruitful or given the silly book the trouncing it
deserves.
If she (and I) sometimes act like “liberals” I’m afraid the reason isn’t far
to seek: we’re located in the top layer of the relatively well-paid slice of
the working class and in a profession (the idea business) whose economic
function is, in part, to keep the rest of the working class (those who don’t
live off their property but their work, mental or physical) in line. We’re
split – and it shows.
LETTERS 279
The Seattle Source, April 11 1986
Dear Editors
Kathy Walmer’s editorial is a little confused about the difference between

separatism and segregation.
Segregation is imposed by the more powerful on the less powerful (or
the minority, on the minority). It amounts to the powerful forbidding the
less powerful to have access to the more powerful’s desirable territory:
well-paying jobs, pleasant places to live, leisure, money, community status
as “important” or “normal” and so on.
Separatism is the attempt of the less powerful to deny the more powerful
access to themselves and their spaces, few and meager as these are, while
also claiming equal access to those good jobs, nice places to live, leisure,
community status as “normal” and “important,” space to have their news
reported in community papers and so on. Getting angry because straight
people invade a gay bar is separatism; making it impossible for gay people
to be ourselves in straight places without feeling uncomfortable or being
afraid of violence is segregation.
To claim half a page out of a sixteen-page paper isn’t separatism; it’s
segregation. “Womensource” is that old, condescending newspaper
tradition, The Woman’s Page, under a new name. Many of us campaigned
to get the big dailies to drop that sexist stuff for years. The Source oughtn’t
to start off by doing the same nerdish nonsense. A woman’s page WILL
cause dissension between the lesbian and gay male communities – and we
have enough of that as it is, right?
Author’s Note
The Seattle Source was a gay community newspaper, begun in Seattle,
Washington, in 1986 (when I was living there). Complaints about women
and women’s doings going unrepresented in the paper led to the editorial
mentioned above: one page out of 32 was proposed to be devoted to
“women’s” news. The editorial also condemned a strictly all-female
newspaper (which possibility had been mentioned as a solution to the lack
of women’s news in The Source) as segregation.
The Women’s Review of Books, III:12,

September 1986
Dear Editors,
The bias Carolyn Heilbrun finds in Janice Raymond’s A Passion for Friends
(Women’s Review, Vol. III, No. 9, June 1986) is all too clearly Lesbian “bias”
– as opposed to the heterosexist (not heterosexual) bias of readers Heilbrun
believes might be alienated by Raymond’s book. Feminism is not limited
to lesbians but we certainly have less of a personal stake than heterosexual
feminists in staying within the bounds of prescribed female behavior and
a much, much more personal stake in examining all ramifications of the
assumption that “woman is for man.”
It’s hard to be heterosexual and a feminist. For one thing, hetero-
sexuality is for the vast majority of women so much a matter of taken-for-
granted social pressures that the possibility of not associating with men in
some kind of sexual-familial arrangement never even arises. Second, unless
a heterosexual feminist’s male partner fights the patriarchy to a degree that
puts him in continual economic or personal danger, he is in very important
ways not her ally. To remain with any other kind of man (they are in very
long supply) requires a woman to distort her thinking, to take customary
behavior as moral behavior and restrain from pushing her own feminist
requirements “too hard,” like the prisoner who learns to avoid painful
contact with an electrified fence by stopping just short of its limits and who
then learns to forget the original process of learning so that the fence
becomes psychologically invisible and she can pretend she’s free.
For the majority of women, avoiding personal sexual association with
men simply isn’t possible; the price is too high. In trying to become aware
of the social forces that limit our behavior as women, public patriarchy is
easier to face than the private kind. Ideally all feminists should face both,
but as least a lesbian can become aware of the sexism that is trying to kill
her without having to face profound personal ambivalence about her
partner. For heterosexual women this ambivalence can become tragically
intense – which is often why it remains in the clouded area of the not-
clearly-felt and never-examined.
I have great respect for Carolyn Heilbrun but the attitudes implied in
her review strike me as dangerous to the entire feminist movement. To
assume that heterosexuality and homosexuality are somehow equivalent
personal choices, that Lesbianism is a civil rights issue only, and that any
comments by Lesbians on the limits imposed on feminist insights and
LETTERS 281
behavior by heterosexuality reveal Lesbian bias, is to abandon the radical

analysis that made the Women’s Liberation Movement possible. To assume
(as Heilbrun also seems to do) that friendship and erotic intensity are
entirely distinct from one another is unrealistic. Surely their interrela-
tionships are multiform.
Carolyn Heilbrun might answer this letter by saying that my interpre-
tation of her review is inaccurate. I hope she does! I will be glad to be
mistaken, as I have seen a cluster of such attitudes far too often in the last
few years: a denial of the compulsory nature of the heterosexual insti-
tution, praise of psychotherapy (especially psychoanalysis), increased
attention to the valorization of women’s behavior along with decreased
attention to what we used to call the oppression of women, an “encour-
agement” of men to broaden their “roles” – fancy anybody talking about
racial roles or class roles! – and (among many literary feminists) an
emphasis on language rather than those gritty and much more intractable
realities, money and power. Such practice adds up to a “liberal”
abandonment of the insights of the Women’s Liberation Movement of the
late 1960s and early 1970s that made feminism possible at all.
Such beliefs are worth exposing, whether Heilbrun shares them or not.
I hope this letter can begin such a discussion. As I said, I hope that I have
misconstrued Heilbrun’s review. I will be more than happy if I have.
Author’s Note
Like the punished-via-sexuality/punished for having a (forbidden)
sexuality split in experience, the lesbian/straight split in experience is an
annoying one. Each side knows what the other doesn’t. As usual, I tried
to speak to the issue involved and not to attack the individual piece of work
that, to my mind, raised the issue. What is crucial about putting together
everyone’s necessarily varying experience (this is where ideas of
“oppression” and “values” come from) is that only such a joining together
can possibly furnish accurate political/social/economic/aesthetic/you-
name-it theory. The set of attitudes and beliefs called “homophobia,” like
that other crucial set of attitudes and beliefs which we call “racism,” can
vary from outright bigotry and hatred to the subtlest assumptions that
“women” means only certain kinds of women to an ignorance not even
aware of itself. As the radicalism of the 1960s and 1970s wanes – inevitable
now that some of the pressures that drove white women to it are somewhat
relieved – early ideas like “compulsory heterosexuality” are getting lost.
My point above (which was misunderstood by some) is NOT that lesbians
make better feminists than heterosexual women, but that in order to know
a subject it is necessary to know all of it and nobody can claim to know all
of it or be the norm for knowing it.
The Women’s Review of Books, IV:10–11, July/August 1987
Old Maids: Short Stories by Nineteenth Century U.S. Women Writers. Ed. Susan
Koppelman (Routledge and Kegan Paul/Pandora Press, New York/London,
1984, $9.95 paper). The Other Woman: Stories of Two Women and a Man. Ed.
Susan Koppelman (The Feminist Press, New York, 1984, $8.95 paper).
Between Mothers and Daughters: Stories Across a Generation. Ed. Susan
Koppelman (The Feminist Press, New York, 1984, $8.95 paper). Close to
Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women’s Oppression. Christine Delphy, trans.
Diana Leonard (University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. MA, 1984,
$10.95 paper).
There’s a whole body of women’s writing in English that is at once relatively

unknown and superbly good if one reads the works in the contexts of their
own literary tradition, which is not that of the masculinist canon we all
know. Even critics who have created new analytic tools we can apply to
women’s literature have worked on the relatively narrow base of those
(atypical) works that have made it into the masculinist canon. Susan
Koppelman has spent fifteen years searching for American women’s short
stories from 1826 to the present (she found, incidentally, that the short
story form was pioneered and developed by women) and from the more
than two thousand “minor” or unknown stories she unearthed, most from
single-author collections and women’s magazines, she has fashioned these
three volumes. (Five more have been accepted for publication and fifteen
are planned at this time, including a “big book” of 150 stories from 1826
to 1980.)
To my mind, what is so very exciting about Koppelman’s research is
seeing the characteristic themes of women’s writing emerge from the body
of the work – they are still characteristic today – and finding how stories
that first seem pale or puzzling gather extraordinarily vivid, suggestive force
once one reads them in the context of all the works. More, there are
geniuses here – Mary E. Wilkins Freeman is only one of them – and subject-
matter never mentioned in traditionally masculinist criticism but whose
power we know in our women’s bones. For me the map of literature has
been altered forever by Koppelman’s anthologies.
The books may have been ignored partly because reading the stories
without attending to Koppelman’s interpretations can be a puzzling
business. (The whole point of the books is the enhancing power on
individual works of a knowledge of the entire tradition.) There’s also the
LETTERS 283
matter of Koppelman’s introductions and notes – they look simple but

aren’t. They illuminate nothing less than the whole conjunction of sexual
politics, literature and history, and with a grand sweep. These are
wonderful books.
I include Christine Delphy’s witty collection of essays here (it’s translated

from the French) because it, too, has received less attention from American
feminists than it deserves. The Psych et Po current of thought in French
feminism has become an American academic favorite recently, which may
have contributed to the silence about Delphy’s quite different work. What
she does is to demonstrate (in the very same argument) both the limits
and the necessity of Marxist class analysis. That is, women are a class in Marxist
terms. American consciousness of Marxist class analysis, including far too
much feminist consciousness, is frankly non-existent. In fact the kind of
attention most American feminists give to class issues scares me silly; either
they assume it’s men’s nastiness which somehow doesn’t apply to women
and which feminism will automatically fix, or they insist that there’s
nothing wrong with capitalism that a little good will and changing sexist
“attitudes” can’t remedy.
That the capitalist wage economy is parasitic on the “female” economy
of domestic work, reproduction and the social/emotional work that holds
communities together is a feminist insight and one which Marx, I think,
refused to see. But that doesn’t mean that his insights about the exploitative
mess of the wage economy (which grew out of and in turn enforced the
socially created split between the “private” world, which was dumped on
women, and the “public” one, not a bargain for most, which was enforced
on men) can’t let women in as a class, despite the propaganda about
women’s gains in the last twenty years (mostly illusory). We are far too
expensive, whether attitudes change or not. Without knowing this, too
many professional and academic women will go on trying for the
respectability that perpetually somehow evades all but a few and in the
process limiting and falsifying the very feminism that matters so much to
them. Me, too.
It’s a painful subject but a fine book.
Author’s Note
The Women’s Review of Books asked many writers for their choice of reading
and the resultant material was published under the title “What Writers
Read.” The books described above are still my favorites – and Susan
Koppelman has since published more of her fine anthologies.
Lesbian Ethics, 2:3, summer 1987
Dear LE,
Thank you, Julia, for your essay (“Heteropatriarchal Semantics,” LE 2:2)

which untangles the confusion I’ve always felt in LE (and elsewhere) about
butch/femme, masculine/feminine talk.
My own experiences: I was a child during World War II and absorbed
all those posters and movies of heroic women – remember? I also grew up
a third-generation Ashkenazy (Eastern European Jew) in a similar
community in New York City. Much later, after I came out a second time
at 33, I was very puzzled by the definitions of butch I heard around me. I
was also embarrassed and ashamed because I hadn’t the slightest desire to
fix cars, play softball, fight, be “physical” and all the other things I saw/heard
were “truly lesbian” or “truly butch.” I was usually characterized as a
“butchy femme” because, although I liked clothes and sewing (which I
learned from my father, originally, and later taught myself; he had learned
it from his mother) and didn’t fix cars, etc., I was articulate, “bossy,” pushed
everyone around, insisted on doing so, got openly angry and passionately
bitter about sexism, and so forth.
I have just realized that when I was called “male-identified” (by other
lesbians) or “femme,” what the lesbians around me were perceiving wasn’t
the same split I made between “masculine” and “feminine” because theirs
was Gentile. Mine was Jewish.
No man fixed cars or was athletic in my neighborhood; no man I knew
ever fought physically with another. To the first- and second-generation
shtetl descendants around me, what was reserved to men, and what made
them superior to women, was not the qualities Julia lists but intellectu-
ality, scholarship, and religion, all activities denied women. The
third-generation Jewish boys I knew at college were quite viciously sexist,
but it never would have occurred to them to claim a monopoly on cars or
athletics; what they claimed for their own was poetry, philosophy, science
and fiction, all the things I loved the most.
They were the rabbis, the melameds (teachers) I wanted so passionately
to be.
As for clothes and jewelry, first- and second-generation Ashkenazy
women wore them much the way their ancestors did: not so much as
badges of “beauty” or “weakness” but as loudly competitive signs of wealth.
They are not so far from being twelfth-century small-town ghetto dwellers,
after all.
LETTERS 285
To have weakness or fragility or gentleness as ideals for women would

have struck them as crazy; a shaine maedel (lovely girl) was “beautiful,”
true, but she abounded with health, she knew how to run the family
finances, she could work, she would be fertile, and she would form part
of the practical network of community services Jessie Bernard has called
the “integry.”
And of course there were no spinsters in the Ashkenazy community, not
even devalued ones. Family was all. Which drove me more batshit than
anything, even then.
It’s a heteropatriarchal system, all right, but not the same one!
Of course, by the third generation we were also being assimilated into
the American Gentile ideals, so that what Julia calls the HP system was
superimposed over our own Yiddish system.
It’s second nature to me to believe (underneath the assimilated values)
that the ideal human being is a combination of balabusteh (crackerjack
housekeeper), community leader/organizer, businesswoman, needle
trades worker (all female excellences) AND a spiritual leader, poet,
historian, philosopher, counselor, political analyst, story-teller and teacher,
in short a rabbi and a melamed (the excellences reserved for males).
This combination is perplexing to women who have grown up in a
different tradition, it seems.
Our ethnic differences must make many differences like this. I think CR
is necessary to discover and untangle them; your Reader’s forum is CR, to
my mind, i.e. specific. Let’s have more.
Author’s Note
The United States is a nation made up of many very different sub-cultures
(this is not even mentioning class differences). I have heard talk – largely
from middle-aged white men – to the effect that everything used to be so
harmonious and people so happy and what happened? – but they don’t
really want to know. Differences that used to be firmly suppressed in a
hierarchy that was sold to all of us as “natural” are now busting out all
over. When they take the forms of theory or morals (and even when they
don’t) it’s impossible to argue them away. They exist. The Left (to which
I belong) must learn them. We must all learn them. It’s time and it’s hard
to do. I’m trying.
Gay Community News, January 22–28 1989
Dear GCN
There must be New Age believers who make more sense than Chris Griscom
(author of Ecstasy Is a New Frequency: Teachings of the Life), but those I know
are all too like her, at least in what they are willing to believe. In order to
believe that the universe is just and kindly, people will tolerate any sort of
silliness and confusion. The New Age believers I meet have come from
some form of white American Protestantism and I – like Duncan Mitchel
(see GCN, Nov. 6–12, 1988) – see Griscom and Shirley Maclaine’s beliefs
as a disguised form of Christianity: obsessed with individual salvation,
unaware of history, justifying its own contradictions, appealing to mystery
and faith, and lacking in community and social conscience.
Don’t understand it? Have faith! Don’t believe it? Have faith! Or as one
young woman said to me when she found out I didn’t believe in God, “But
you ought to try,” as if belief were an athletic feat like running a four-
minute mile.
I’m an atheist. I had an entirely secular upbringing, but with the
emphasis on ethics and social action typical of the secular Jews of my
parents’ generation, in whom Messianic fervor had been transformed into
a passionate determination to understand the world and an equally
passionate commitment to changing it for the better. I’m also someone
who’s had many experiences of what I can only call mysticism during my
teens and twenties: a feeling of unity with the natural world and even
moments in which I “knew” (in ways I could never recall afterwards or
describe) that space and time were – I use such language for lack of a better
– illusions. This sort of experience turns up in the literary records of all
sorts of religions and while the experience is remarkably the same in all
accounts (or almost all) it is used by particular mystics to “prove” the truth
of their own particular religious belief. In short, it has no necessary
connection with the facts of that creed nor does it – in my experience –
have any connection with morality of the ordinary kind. I never made the
jump from such experiences to any kind of creed; I merely assumed that
everybody felt like that sometimes and let it go at that.
It’s those who get religion in childhood who need religion later.
If my mysticism is or was connected with anything, the connection is
with some sort of feeling I can only call aesthetic, the same sort of thing I
feel for music or mathematics.
LETTERS 287
Ecstatic, wonderful experiences happen and are a part of life. There are
also experiences that are terrifying or bleak. These are part of life also. The
world’s religions have bent logic into pretzels trying to erase the pain of
life and all of them have had to mystify it. Thus we are told simply that
pain is a mystery or that life is an illusion anyway or that the afterlife will
make up to us for it or that we are being tested or that our perceptions of
pain as pain are at fault, and lately that victims choose their fate and it
doesn’t really hurt anyway.
Mitchel thinks such beliefs are contemptible. I agree.
In fact there seems to be something very U.S.A.-style imperialistic about
such stuff; i.e. that the agony and death of others exists for us, either to add
to our wealth and self-congratulation in the ordinary economic/political
way of thinking such things or – in Griscom’s view – to teach us that the
suffering of others doesn’t matter and that it exists for us too.
I had to write and add my voice to Mitchel’s. And thank him.
The Women’s Review of Books, VI:7, April 1989
Dear Editors,
Claudia Koonz is too polite about Joan Wallach Scott’s Gender and the Politics
of History (January 1989). I’m strongly reminded of the politically ghastly
1950s in which abuses of the New Criticism likewise served to “push reality
into the wings” and give all agency to language.
Is it surprising, in the politically reactionary 1980s, to find a parallel
attempt to turn academic attention to “the process of signification” and
away from the human actors who create it, continue it and often suffer
from it in this bad real world?
To say that language influences reality and helps create or stabilize it
and that events do not occur unmediated by human beliefs and social
systems is one thing. To say that nothing else exists or that we can legiti-
mately know only language is another thing entirely. The reductio ad
absurdum here is so obvious that I feel silly merely pointing it out: signifi-
cation is all we can talk about, signification is produced by human
subjectivity and human experience which (a) do not exist or (b) are to be
ignored as unknowable – therefore we are discussing a subject, signifi-
cation, which we cannot know and which cannot exist because it can be judged
by nobody because we cannot talk about human subjectivity.
I’m not accusing Scott of participating in a conspiracy, nor do I want to
imply anything about her motives. But one of the advantages of aging is
that when you see the same damn nonsense coming round again you can
spot it in one-tenth the time it took you to recognize it the first time. The
1950s’ literary emphasis on the autonomy of texts was an escape into a
realm divorced from the nasty world in which professors were being kicked
out of jobs for being “subversive” and witch hunts against homosexuals
were a regular feature of public life. Current reality is also mighty
unpleasant; how nice it would be if it were only language and we could
control it by controlling language, or if attempts to do anything else were
impossible or useless. (And look how important that would make us.)
There are other ways of abandoning or gutting feminism and they are
happening: attempts to amalgamate it to the anti-feminist intellectual
tradition it used to criticize; focusing on issues even non-feminists can
deplore (like individual violent acts against women) and turning away
from the apparently more refractory issues, like money; attempts to create
a “women’s culture” or even a women’s religion unconnected to economics
or politics; or labeling “feminist” everything one judges to be good, like
peace, ecology or vegetarianism. Meanwhile my undergraduate students
assure me that feminism is no longer necessary because we’ve solved all
that and various female colleagues and graduate students derive it from
two white gentlemen, ignoring twenty years of extra-academic and other
academic feminist work and writing.
I would say that we’ve been betrayed, were not such a remark one of
the banalities of history. And so heartbreaking.
Author’s Note
This one doesn’t need a note!
LETTERS 289
SFRA Newsletter, No. 172, November 1989
The Other Side
Dear Editors,
Sarah Lefanu’s Feminism and Science Fiction may not be the kind of book
Rob Latham wants Lefanu to write but I believe it is, nonetheless, a good
and important book. Lefanu has written a book not about feminism but a
search for the possibilities of feminism in science fiction. The book is
feminism. Perhaps Latham’s hostility to the work springs from his lack of
acquaintance with the last twenty years of feminist theory in the U.S. and
elsewhere. This is knowledge rarely found in the academy. Acceptance
there of the French school of Psychoanalyse et Politique and associated
work oriented toward Freud and Lacan omits most of French feminism
(which is quite different from the kind popularized here in the academy)
and almost all of the rich tradition originating outside the academy in the
last two decades of U.S. and British writing. Some other questions Latham’s
review suggests:
What’s wrong with eclectism? Criticism isn’t a science, nor does it
proceed by everyone’s accepting certain basic principles and reasoning
deductively therefrom.
Why demand a definition of “science fiction”? Genres always have clear,
pointable-at centers and fuzzy boundaries.
In the absence of any kind of comprehensive account of women’s
writing in English of the last two centuries – all we have had is pounds of
criticism applied to a penn’orth of canon – should we trust anything besides
the kind of particular readings Lefanu does so well? There is such a long
tradition of women’s work and there are some pioneers – see, for example,
Susan Koppelman’s work.
Although Latham praises Lefanu for her particular readings, he also
accuses her of “unsubstantiated claims,” “accusations,” “sneering,” and
“smugness.” It is true that Lefanu does not soothe or flatter – she is
angry at men as a privileged class and makes no bones about it – but
her anger does not necessarily impugn the truth of her generalizations.
That science fiction has been a male preserve since the 1920s is hardly a
debatable statement. And I join Lefanu in much of her anger, and her
cynicism about the sudden popularity of female heroes in male writers’
science fiction.
Why is The Handmaid’s Tale a “major” work? Despite my admiration for

Atwood’s other work, I find this novel thin and evasive, lacking in economic
plausibility and without any of the political history we have every right to
demand of a dystopla. Swastika Night is much better science fiction and
hence a much better book, but it certainly isn’t part of the U.S. tradition
of science fiction, which grew out of the pulps, and which was joined by
British science fiction only after World War II.
Why include Margaret St Clair, Shirley Jackson or Miriam Allen de Ford
as feminist writers? One might make a case for Shirley Jackson as a writer
who depicts the female situation but feminism is surely more self-conscious
and politically explicit than this.
Why not include “minor” fiction, like Marion Zimmer Bradley’s if it
suits one’s critical purpose? Bradley is a very popular writer whose work
has certainly influenced readers.1 She has written at least one explicitly
feminist statement, The Shattered Chain, which was part of the mini-
explosion of explicitly feminist science fiction in the U.S. during the 1970s.
Other books include Suzy Charnas’s Walk to the End of the World and Mother-
lines, my own The Female Man, Alice Sheldon’s “Houston, Houston, Do You
Read?” and “The Women Men Don’t See” (and possibly a few others like
“Mama Come Home”), Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness, Sally Gearhart’s
The Wanderground, Delany’s Triton, and Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge
of Time. Piercy and I and Charnas and I have corresponded, as have I and
Delany; Bradley named one of the characters in her book after one of the
characters in mine; Alice Sheldon and I also corresponded (until her death);
Piercy read all the other books, and everybody read everybody. Both by
her intention – we all, as far as I know, made our intentions very clear –
Bradley belongs in this group. (I think she and I did write a few letters to
each other but I can’t find them.) I was one of the people who read
Gearhart’s early stories and urged her to write more. (I even sent a geschrei
to Le Guin, about which she was remarkably patient.)
I hope Lathan’s review will not keep anyone who is teaching women’s
studies, science fiction or women’s literature from getting and using
Lefanu’s very good book.
1 A fan fiction has grown up about her invented world, Darkover, which has
produced some originally-fan, now-professional, writers.
LETTERS 291
Extrapolation, 31:1, spring 1990
To the Editors:
Veronica Hollinger’s essay in 30:2 [on “James Tiptree, Jr.”] (1989) sent me
back to Alice Sheldon’s letters. The relevant passage is from a letter dated
the twenty-fifth of September, 1980, “0400 hours.”
Just been reading the Coming-Out stories ed by Stanley & Wolfe

(with a lot of Adrienne Rich) and it occurred to me to wonder if I
ever told you in so many words that I am a Lesbian – or at least as
close as one can come to being one never having had a successful
love with any of the women I’ve loved, and being now too old &
ugly to dare try. Oh, had 65 years been different! I like some men a
lot, but from the start, before I knew anything it was always girls and
women who lit me up. (Oh, the sad, foolish, lovely tales I’m going
to have to put down some day!)
I just thought I’d mention it, since you seem to have found yourself.
(Possibly my reward for years of stasis & misery is to be the ideal confi-
dante!)
Pre-Stonewall life was hard on homosexual people; our response to the

hostility and bigotry around us has often been to associate love with death
– or at least love with disaster, which is still a possibility today despite some
of the advances of the last two decades. Unrequited love is a way of
protecting oneself against the fear that the desire brings and yet expressing
that desire. Hence the “stasis & misery.”
I’m sending the letters Tiptree wrote me to the Lesbian Herstory Archives
in New York. The address is: Lesbian Herstory Archives, P.O. Box 1258,
New York, N.Y. 10116.
Author’s Note
“James Tiptree, Jr.” was a science fiction writer whose very fine work began
appearing in the 1960s. No one had ever met “Tiptree” and theories about
“him” were rife. Finally “James Tiptree, Jr.” was revealed to be a sixty-
year-old biologist called Alice Sheldon. We corresponded extensively, both
before this revelation and afterwards. I loved James and was sad to lose
him but I loved Alice too (she sent postcards typed in blue ink with blue-
ink octopi drawn on them) and was much sadder to lose her because her
loss (her death) was permanent. Straight people, however sympathetic

they may be, don’t know the texture or the difficulties of gay lives. When
I heard of her death I determined that she wouldn’t go down in history as
another happy, heterosexual woman (like Virginia Woolf) whose life was
edited because her real desires were held to be somehow an “attack” on
her character. Sheldon, like Woolf, was married and happily so but she
was a lesbian. Therefore I wrote the above note to Extrapolation and donated
her letters to what I considered the appropriate place.
Publication of the Modern Language Association, March 1992
Author’s Note
If academic intellectuals have a besetting vice it’s abstraction. It’s so easy
to lose awareness of people’s concrete situations in studying their rhetoric
or the structures of their situations. I don’t know if Rita Felski has incor-
porated a down-to-earth knowledge of gay lives in the late 1890s into her
book, but I do know about being gay in the 1950s and 1960s (I was there)
and it seemed to me that she didn’t. Where does the money come from?
Who gets it? What do they have to do to get it? What happens if they don’t
do it? Questions like these tend to slip silently out of many academic
theories. Some years ago I read a poem by Oscar Wilde, a flamboyant exotic-
erotic affair written when he was an undergraduate of nineteen. It seemed
to me rather overblown in its purple and sensuous imagery – until I realized
that he was writing about his own kind of sexuality and suddenly I could
see the conflict in the poem itself between wanting to say it straight out and
knowing that he couldn’t. Saying it could put you in jail. You could be
stuck in a mental hospital. Your career could be ruined, your family could
desert you, your job could disappear. In Wilde’s time these were not possi-
bilities but dead certain. In fact, they happened. It’s things like this that
most academics tend to leave out of their theorizing when the people in
question are not like them. And that is a very, very bad thing for everyone.
LETTERS 293
To the Editors:
In “The Counterdiscourse of the Feminine in Three Texts by Wilde,

Huysmans, and Sacher-Masoch” (PMLA, 106 [1991]: 1094–105), Rita
Felski doesn’t emphasize the writers’ conscious motives for the fin-de-
siècle “cult of art and artifice” (p. 1094) she otherwise treats so well. Of
course, her forthcoming book may do just this, but I think her article scants
the extent to which the writers involved knew what they were doing.
First – and I don’t think this can be emphasized too much – careers and
lives could easily be smashed by any openness at all [about homosexu-
ality], and everyone knew it.
Second – and Felski seems to me to have de-emphasized this too – there
is the formidable difficulty of describing or envisioning oneself at all, given
the cultural counters available. How to describe – or even be – this man-
who-is-not-a-man? How to do so especially at the particular time Felski
notes? As Jonathan Ned Katz demonstrates (Gay/Lesbian Almanac: A New
Documentary, Harper, New York, 1983), the crucial business of inventing
“heterosexuality” – that new identity the European medical profession was
so insistent about – required for real success “homosexuality”: its bad and
deviant twin, to which certain qualities were attributed. Unnatural? Fine;
we’ll make a value of artifice. Immoral? We’ll make a virtue of heart-
lessness. Feminine? We’ll scorn women. Defective? We’ll be aristocrats,
either by birth or by taste.
Without more emphasis on the reactive nature of the “cult,” readers of
Felski’s article may misinterpret such phrases as “a subtext of anxiety and
repressed violence” (p. 1102) and “deeper anxieties about sexuality and
the body” (p. 1101) and conclude that such anxieties resulted from
homosexuality or that they caused it. When oppression is soft-pedaled, the
connection between anxiety and oppression gets lost, as does the link
between anxiety and outright persecution.
When actual gay politics becomes active rather than reactive, so do
cultural politics, of course. Some of this happened in the period Felski
describes. I look forward to her book, but I hope it will embrace more of the
historicity of the phenomenon she studies and will face more squarely the
problem of how conscious a strategy the decadent sensibility was and what
sort of strategies were practical for writers whose earning a living depended
directly or indirectly on their work. Along with Katz, Sheila Jeffreys (The
Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality, 1880–1930, Routledge,
London, 1985) and Lilian Faderman (Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic
Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present, Morrow,
New York, 1981) are important sources for this period; that Felski doesn’t
use them here is a mistake, I think.
A note on Huysmans’s character Miss Urania: her name is a joke clearly

aimed at those in the know. A German term, originating in the 1860s,
uranism was used throughout the 1880s and 1890s (especially in the United
States, says Katz) to mean homosexuality. Huysmans’ brutal strong man
at the fair reappears in Quentin Crisp’s Naked Civil Servant as the tall dark
man and throughout Jean Genet’s novels as just about everybody.
Sojourner: The Women’s Forum, September 1993
Rewind After Viewing
Ishtar, written and directed by Elaine May. RCA/Columbia Pictures (1987)
Is a feminist buddy picture about men possible? Yes – when the director’s
Elaine May, with her brand of gentle lunacy/common sense. In Ishtar,
Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty are lousy songwriter wannabes –
unheroic, generous, unsuspicious, openhearted and more than a teensy
bit slow (in short, sheltered white American men as May and I would like
to see them). Isabelle Adjani, revolutionary heroine, is the real hero of the
picture, so disguised during most of the movie that we see only the tip of
her nose and her upper lip. (She flashes one breast for a millisecond in a
crowded airport in a scene so utterly anti-erotic that it probably explains
much of the critics’ venom toward the picture.) At the end we get to see
her whole face – briefly – in a very demure dress with a lace collar.
May doesn’t set up her laughs and pile-drive them home. The picture’s
pacing is gentle and respectful, in a way I associate with women’s pictures;
i.e. things ripple and you get to smile at them. I found it all excruciatingly,
deliciously funny, from Beatty’s knitted cap with its pom-pom and his
overstuffed quilted jacket with waddle to match (they make him look like
a five-year-old in a snowsuit) to a wonderfully awful camel that person-
ifies sheer animal self-will; it goes when you want it to stop, sits when you
want it to go, wanders in circles no matter what you do, and groans horribly
LETTERS 295
at all the wrong moments, like a distressed basso trombone. There’s one
impulsive kiss just as clumsily uncomfortable as such things really are, and
the actors are obviously delighted to be playing real people and not
Hollywood glitz.
Given the outline of the kind of film feminists cringe at, May has
produced – by some major miracle – a woman’s film. There’s not a trace
of the patriarchal adulation of male heroics; Adjani’s smarts (and
compassion) save the day, and there’s a wonderful portrayal of a C.I.A.
man so oily your fingertips cringe – you know if you touched him, they’d
come away greasy. If Indiana Jones (and all the others) make you snarl,
Ishtar is the perfect antidote. The critics disliked it, and it bombed at the
box office, but it’s a gem.
The Lesbian Review of Books, I:3, 1995
In her essay in The Persistent Desire, Lyndall MacCowan says something that
seems to shed a lot of light on the ongoing lesbian debates on sexuality,
the latest manifestation of which occurred in I:2 of The Lesbian Review of
Books.
MacCowan says that “women’s” sexual pain comes from being punished
by means of their sexuality for being female, while “lesbians’” sexual pain
comes from being punished for being sexual (p. 32). These groups are not
mutually exclusive, obviously, and many of us have been punished in both
ways. Nonetheless, depending on which kind of punishment has been
dominant in one’s life (and perhaps depending on which happened earlier),
it’s probable that a particular lesbian will be found on either one side or
the other of the debate.
Those punished in the area of their sexuality are probably those who
have lived a heterosexual life or (like me) tried to, and they will be keenly
aware of the ways in which abusive and domineering behavior can be
confused with sexuality, forced on them under the pretext of sexuality, or
excused because it is “sexual.” Those punished for their lesbian sexuality
will be vividly aware of how “improper” sexual desires can be the reason
for hatred, cruelty and exclusion. Both will have low flash points for
anything that resembles (or even simply reminds them of) what they have
been put through. Thus one group will see plastique explosive in what
another regards as Play-doh, and the latter will perceive any request for
analysis as another raid by the police.
What the two sides are arguing about is a difference in experience. Both
are right. Both are wrong. When one speaks of sexual freedom, the other
will react as if the first were advocating violence; when one attacks violence,
the other will react as if the attack were against freedom. In this spiraling
of perceived threat, one faction will talk about the other’s “sex phobia”
and the second faction about the first’s “violence against women.” Thus in
1982 Kathleen Barry insisted (in Trivia) that Gayle Rubin’s wish to repeal
age-of-consent laws meant condoning rape in which the rapist used threats
of murder (p. 90). I have heard some young lesbians similarly dismiss
feminism as a conspiracy of evil witches (like me) who had “desexualized”
lesbianism – without any awareness that it was feminism that had in large
part secured for them the relative freedom they have today.
As MacCowan says, the feminism of the 1970s did indeed originate in
the experience of white women attached to middle-class white men. I was
one of them. I know that our experiences and assumptions were hetero-
sexual, no matter what our orientation may have been. This is not a crime. It
was hard enough, at that time and in that context, to trust our own
experience at all, and that we succeeded in doing so to any degree at all
was an immense achievement. Nonetheless, our analysis was incomplete.
On the other hand, I agree emphatically with Jeffreys that changes in
style do not in themselves cause social change and neither does sexual
pleasure. Style changes are perfectly O.K. things, but insisting that every-
thing you happen to like is “subversive” is the overreaction of persecuted
people.
Every oppressed group desperately needs coalitions. These won’t
happen if people continue to talk past each other. I think the only way to
make our positions intelligible to each other is not by arguing in abstrac-
tions, but by recounting experiences and connecting them to our particular
ideas, i.e. by consciousness raising. That is what the fine anthology The
Persistent Desire, and Kathleen Barry’s fine biography of Susan B. Anthony
both do.
Once we know about each other’s experiences and the ideas which
come from them, we can avoid the kind of thing Halberstam inadvertently
does at the end of her review of The Lesbian Heresy. For over a century many
men have used derisive references to women’s “prudery” and “frigidity,”
as well as pleased accounts of how sexually liberated they themselves are,
LETTERS 297
as a way of insulting women, feminists and feminism. I endured this more

times than I care to remember in the years spanning 1950 to 1980. It was
(and is) sexism of a particularly nasty kind. It doesn’t belong in a book
review and I don’t like it, even though I agree with much in Halberstam’s
review, especially her comments on the erotic DMZ and something ghastly
“skittering” across it. We must stop making jokes that are not jokes to the
other side. We must stop making totalizing statements, employing a double
standard of behavior (if one of Us does it, it’s a human flaw; if one of Them
does, it’s a sign of Their evil), and demonizing each other (no matter what
They say, I know what They really mean and it’s bad). What folks value,
what they do, what they know, what they accept and reject, all come from
what has happened to them. I am talking about knowledge, and under-
standing other people’s knowledge is what it’s all about.
Author’s Note
The Great Lesbian/Feminist Sex Wars continue. I would like to lock one
of the less sensible of each camp in a room until they either come to some
agreement or meet the fate of the Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat.
Index of Books and Authors Reviewed
7 Conquests. Poul Anderson Barjavel, René, trans. Damon Knight,

(Macmillan) 26 Ashes, Ashes (Doubleday) 9
Abyss. Kate Wilhelm (Doubleday) 64 Bed Sitting Room, The. Richard Lester
Age of the Pussyfoot, The. Frederik Pohl (movie) 52
(Trident) 18 Beginning Place, The. Ursula K. Le Guin
Aickman, Robert, Painted Devils (Harper & Row) 171
(Charles Scribner’s Sons) 175 Bernard, Jessie, Future of Marriage, The
Aldiss, Brian, Frankenstein Unbound (World) 86
(Random House) 108 Best of the Best, The. Ed. Judith Merril
— Report on Probability A (Doubleday) (Delacorte) 8
44 Best SF Stories from New Worlds #2, The.
Allen, L. David, Cliffs Notes: Science Ed. Poul Anderson (Berkley) 25
Fiction, An Introduction (Cliffs Notes Best SF: 1968. Eds. Harry Harrison and
Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska) 114 Brian Aldiss (Putnam’s) 37
Anderson, Poul, 7 Conquests Beyond Apollo. Barry Malzberg
(Macmillan) 26 (Random House) 83
— Satan’s World (Doubleday) 41 Biggle, Lloyd, Light That Never Was, The
Anderson, Poul, ed., Best SF Stories (Doubleday) 81
from New Worlds #2, The (Berkley) — Still Small Voice of Trumpets, The
25 (Doubleday) 15
Anderson, Poul, and Mildred Downey Black Easter. James Blish (Doubleday)
Broxon, Demon of Scattery, The (Ace) 11
173 Blish, James, Black Easter (Doubleday)
Anticipations: Eight New Stories. Ed. 11
Christopher Priest (Scribner’s, New — Day After Judgment, The (Doubleday)
York) 147 67
Anvil, Christopher, Pandora’s Planet — Midsummer Century (Doubleday) 82
(Doubleday) 80 — Warriors of the Day, The (Lancer) 4
As Tomorrow Becomes Today. Ed. Blish, James, and Norman L. Knight,
Charles Wm. Sullivan, III (Prentice- Torrent of Faces, A (Doubleday) 10
Hall) 117 Blum, Ralph, Simultaneous Man, The
Ashes, Ashes. René Barjavel, trans. (Atlantic–Little Brown) 49
Damon Knight (Doubleday) 9 Blunt, Wilfrid, Omar (Doubleday) 21
Asimov, Isaac, In Memory Yet Green: Born With the Dead. Robert Silverberg
The Autobiography of Isaac Asimov, (Random House) 102
1920–1954 (Doubleday) 141 Boswell, Harriet A., Master Guide to
— Opus 200 (Houghton Mifflin) 142 Psychism (Lancer) 61
Bad Moon Rising. Ed. Thomas Disch Bova, Ben, Millennium (Random
(Harper & Row) 97 House) 125
Boyd, John, Last Starship from Earth, Cube Root of Uncertainty, The. Robert
The (Berkley) 31 Silverberg (Macmillan) 54
Bradbury, Ray, I Sing the Body Electric
(Knopf) 44 Da Vinci Machine, The. Earl Conrad
Brown, Frederic, Paradox Lost (Fleet Press) 32
(Random House) 100 Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics
Brunner, John, Total Eclipse of Radical Feminism (Boston: Beacon
(Doubleday) 106 Press, 1979) 155
Buckland, Raymond, Practical Candle Dann, Jack, ed., Immortal: Short Novels
Burning (Llewellyn) 60 of the Transhuman Future (Harper &
Bug Jack Barron. Norman Spinrad Row, New York) 145
(Avon) 34 Dark Symphony, The. Dean R. Koontz
Bulmer, Kenneth, Doomsday Men, The (Lancer) 51
(Doubleday) 15 Davidson, Avram, Phoenix and the
Bunch, David R., Moderan (Avon) 74 Mirror, The (Doubleday) 22
Butler, Octavia, Kindred (Doubleday & Day After Judgment, The. James Blish
Company) 176 (Doubleday) 67
Day of the Dolphin, The. Robert Merle
Can You Feel Anything When I Do This? (Simon and Schuster) 33
Robert Shackley (Doubleday) 79 Del Rey, Judy Lynn, ed., Stellar 1
Carr, Terry, ed., Year’s Finest Fantasy, (Ballantine) 114
The (Berkley Putnam, New York, Demon of Scattery, The. Poul Anderson
1978) 136 and Mildred Downey Broxon (Ace)
173
— Universe 9 (Doubleday & Company)
Dialectic of Sex, The. Shulamith
176
Firestone (Bantam) 62
Chant, Joy, Grey Mane of Morning, The
Diary of a Witch. Sybil Leek (Signet) 60
(George Allen & Unwin, London,
Dick, Philip K., Flow My Tears, The
1977) 138
Policeman Said. (Doubleday) 106
Clement, Hal, Small Changes
Dickson, Gordon, Star Road, The
(Doubleday) 24 (Doubleday) 100
Clement, Hal, ed., First Flights to the Dinnerstein, Dorothy, Mermaid and the
Moon (Doubleday) 53 Minotaur, The: Sexual Arrangements
Clewiston Test, The. Kate Wilhelm and Human Malaise (Harper & Row,
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux) 122 New York, 1976) 160
Cliffs Notes: Science Fiction, An Intro- Disch, Thomas M., On Wings of Song
duction. L. David Allen (Cliffs Notes (St. Martin’s Press) 173
Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska) 114 Disch, Thomas, ed., Bad Moon Rising
Cloned Lives. Pamela Sargent (Fawcett (Harper & Row) 97
Gold Medal) 127 Dispossessed, The. Ursula K. Le Guin
Comet. Jane White (Harper) 126 (Harper & Row) 110
Committed Men, The. M. John Harrison Donaldson, Stephen, Lord Foul’s Bane
(Doubleday) 78 (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
Complete Book of Magic and Witchcraft, York, 1977, Ballantine, 1978) 138
The. Kathryn Paulsen (Signet) 59 Doomsday Men, The. Kenneth Bulmer
Complex Man. Marie Farca (Doubleday) (Doubleday) 15
102 Dying Inside. Robert Silverberg
Conrad, Earl, Da Vinci Machine, The (Scribner’s) 96
(Fleet Press) 32
Cooper, Edmund, Sea Horse in the Sky Effinger, George Alec, What Entropy
(Putnam’s) 51 Means To Me (Doubleday) 85
INDEX OF BOOKS AND AUTHORS REVIEWED 301
Elder, Joseph, ed., Eros In Orbit: A Society (McGraw-Hill, New York,

Collection of All New Science Fiction 1980) 185
Stories About Sex (Trident Press) 91 Flesh. Philip José Farmer (Doubleday)
Elliott, Robert C., Shape of Utopia, The: 16
Studies in a Literary Genre Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said.
(University of Chicago Press, 1970) Philip. K. Dick (Doubleday) 106
68 Frankenstein Unbound. Brian Aldiss
Ellison, Harlan (collaborations with (Random House) 108
various authors), Partners in Wonder Friend, Beverly, Science Fiction: The
(Walker) 66 Classroom in Orbit (Educational
Elwood, Roger, and Sam Moskowitz, Impact, Inc., Glassboro, N.J., 1974)
eds., Strange Signposts, An Anthology 120
of the Fantastic (Holt Rinehart and Future of Marriage, The. Jessie Bernard
Winston, 1966) 3 (World) 86
Emphyrio. Jack Vance (Doubleday) 36
Empty People, The. K. M. O’Donnell Gerrold, David, Yesterday’s Children
(Lancer) 38 (Fawcett Popular Library) 172
Emshwiller, Carol, Joy in Our Cause Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, Herland: A
(Harper & Row) 112 Lost Feminist Utopian Novel
English Assassin, The. Michael (Pantheon, New York, 1979) 152
Moorcock (Harper & Row) 120 Goulart, Ron, Sword Swallower, The
Eros In Orbit: A Collection of All New (Doubleday) 21
Science Fiction Stories About Sex. Ed. Greenberg, Martin Harry, and Patricia
Joseph Elder (Trident Press) 91 S. Warrick, eds., Political Science
Fiction: An Introductory Reader
(Prentice-Hall) 116
Faderman, Lillian, Surpassing the Love
Grey Mane of Morning, The. Joy Chant
of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love
(George Allen & Unwin, London,
Between Women from the Renaissance
1977) 138
to the Present (Morrow, Quill
Gunn, James, Listeners, The
paperback) 188
(Scribner’s) 95
Falling Astronauts, The. Barry N.
— Some Dreams Are Nightmares
Malzberg (Ace) 76 (Scribner’s) 105
Farca, Marie, Complex Man Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical
(Doubleday) 102 Feminism. Mary Daly (Boston:
Farmer, Philip José, Flesh (Doubleday) Beacon Press, 1979) 155
16
Feinberg, Gerald, Prometheus Project, Haining, Peter, ed., Satanists, The
The: Mankind’s Search for Long-Range (Taplinger) 58
Goals (Doubleday) 28 Harding, Lee, ed., Ursula K. Le
Final Programme, The. Michael Guin’s Science Fiction Writing
Moorcock (Avon) 14 Workshop: The Altered I (Berkley,
Fireflood and Other Stories. Vonda N. New York) 148
McIntyre (Houghton Mifflin) 172 Harrison, Harry, One Step from Earth
Firestone, Shulamith, Dialectic of Sex, (Macmillan) 54
The (Bantam) 62 Harrison, Harry, ed., Light Fantastic,
First Flights to the Moon. Ed. Hal The (Scribner’s) 65
Clement (Doubleday) 53 — SF: Author’s Choice 2 (Berkley) 54
Fisher, Elizabeth, Woman’s Creation: Harrison, Harry, and Brian Aldiss,
Sexual Evolution and the Shaping of eds., Best SF: 1968 (Putnam’s) 37
Harrison, M. John, Committed Men, The Last Starship from Earth, The. John
(Doubleday) 78 Boyd (Berkley) 31
Hart, Harold H., ed., Marriage: For and Le Guin, Ursula K., Beginning Place,
Against (Hart) 86 The (Harper & Row) 171
Herbert, Frank, Santaroga Barrier, The — Dispossessed, The (Harper & Row)
(Berkley) 19 110
Here, Mr. Splitfoot. Robert Somerlott Le Guin, Ursula, ed. Susan Wood,
(Viking) 62 Language of the Night, The: Essays on
Herland: A Lost Feminist Utopian Novel. Fantasy and Science Fiction (G.P.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman Putnam’s Sons) 179
(Pantheon, New York, 1979) 152 Leek, Sybil, Diary of a Witch (Signet) 60
High Cost of Living, The. Marge Piercy Leiber, Fritz, Rime Isle (Whispers Press,
(New York, Harper and Row, 1978) Chapel Hill, N.C., 1977) 135
129 Lester, Richard, dir., Bed Sitting Room,
Humanity Prime. Bruce McAllister The (movie) 52
(Ace) 77 Let the Fire Fall. Kate Wilhelm
(Doubleday) 29
I Sing the Body Electric. Ray Bradbury Levin, Ira, This Perfect Day (Random
(Knopf) 44 House) 46
Immortal: Short Novels of the Light Fantastic, The. Ed. Harry Harrison
Transhuman Future. Ed. Jack Dann (Scribner’s) 65
(Harper & Row, New York) 145 Light That Never Was, The. Lloyd Biggle
In Memory Yet Green: The Autobiography (Doubleday) 81
of Isaac Asimov, 1920–1954 Listeners, The. James Gunn (Scribner’s)
(Doubleday) 141 95
In the Pocket and Other SF Stories and Lord Foul’s Bane. Stephen Donaldson
Gather in the Hall of the Planets. K. (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
M. O’Donnell (Ace double) 77 York, 1977, Ballantine, 1978) 138
Into the Unknown: The Evolution of Science Lord of Light. Roger Zelazny
Fiction from Francis Godwin to H. G. (Doubleday) 6
Wells. Robert M. Philmus (University
of California Press, 1970) 71 Malzberg, Barry, Beyond Apollo
Iron Dream, The. Norman Spinrad (Random House) 83
(Avon) 94 — Falling Astronauts, The (Ace) 76
Marriage: For and Against. Ed. Harold
Jones, Margaret, Transplant (Stein and H. Hart (Hart) 86
Day) 20 Marshak, Sondra, and Myrna
Joy in Our Cause. Carol Emshwiller Culbreath, eds., Star Trek: The New
(Harper & Row) 112 Voyages (Bantam) 127
Master Guide to Psychism. Harriet A.
Kelley, Leo P., Time Rogue (Lancer) 55 Boswell (Lancer) 61
Kindred. Octavia Butler (Doubleday & McAllister, Bruce, Humanity Prime
Company) 176 (Ace) 77
Koontz, Dean R., Dark Symphony, The McCaffrey, Anne, Ship Who Sang, The
(Lancer) 51 (Walker) 39
McIntyre, Vonda N., Fireflood and
Language of the Night, The: Essays on Other Stories (Houghton Mifflin) 172
Fantasy and Science Fiction. Ursula Le Merle, Robert, Day of the Dolphin, The
Guin, ed. Susan Wood (G.P. (Simon and Schuster) 33
Putnam’s Sons) 179 Mermaid and the Minotaur, The: Sexual
Arrangements and Human Malaise. Pandora’s Planet. Christopher Anvil

Dorothy Dinnerstein (Harper & (Doubleday) 80
Row, New York, 1976) 160 Paradox Lost. Frederic Brown (Random
Merril, Judith, ed., Best of the Best, The House) 100
(Delacorte) 8 Partners in Wonder. Harlan Ellison
Midsummer Century. James Blish (collaborations with various
(Doubleday) 82 authors) (Walker) 66
Millennium. Ben Bova (Random Paulsen, Kathryn, Complete Book of
House) 125 Magic and Witchcraft, The (Signet) 59
Mind Parasites, The. Colin Wilson Pavane. Keith Roberts (Doubleday) 17
(Arkham House) 7 Philmus, Robert M., Into the Unknown:
Moderan. David R. Bunch (Avon) 74 The Evolution of Science Fiction from
Modern Science Fiction. Ed. Norman Francis Godwin to H. G. Wells
Spinrad (Anchor Press, New York) (University of California Press,
119 1970) 71
Moorcock, Michael, English Assassin, Phoenix and the Mirror, The. Avram
The (Harper & Row) 120 Davidson (Doubleday) 22
— Final Programme, The (Avon) 14 Piercy, Marge, High Cost of Living, The
— Stealer of Souls and Stormbringer (New York, Harper and Row, 1978)
(Lancer) 5 129
Moore, Raylyn, What Happened to Pig World. Charles W. Runyon
Emily Goode After the Great Exhibition (Doubleday) 78
(Donning [Scarblaze], Norfolk, Va., Place Beyond Man, A. Cary Neeper
1978) 133 (Dell, New York) 150
Pohl, Frederik, Age of the Pussyfoot, The
Neeper, Cary, Place Beyond Man, A (Trident) 18
(Dell, New York) 150 Political Science Fiction: An Introductory
New Dimensions 9. Ed. Robert Reader. Eds. Martin Harry
Silverberg (Harper & Row) 177 Greenberg, Patricia S. Warrick
(Prentice-Hall) 116
O’Donnell, K. M., Empty People, The Practical Candle Burning. Raymond
(Lancer) 38 Buckland (Llewellyn) 60
— In the Pocket and Other SF Stories and Priest, Christopher, ed., Anticipations:
Gather in the Hall of the Planets (Ace Eight New Stories (Scribner’s, New
double) 77 York) 147
Omar. Wilfrid Blunt (Doubleday) 21 Prometheus Project, The: Mankind’s
On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Search for Long-Range Goals. Gerald
Prose, 1966–1978. Adrienne Rich Feinberg (Doubleday) 28
(Norton) 143
On Wings of Song. Thomas M. Disch Report on Probability A. Brian W. Aldiss
(St. Martin’s Press) 173 (Doubleday) 44
One Step from Earth. Harry Harrison Retreat As It Was! Donna J. Young (The
(Macmillan) 54 Naiad Press, 7800 Westside Dr.,
Operation Ares. Gene Wolfe (Berkley) Weatherby Lake, Missouri, 64152)
57 181
Opus 200. Isaac Asimov (Houghton Rich, Adrienne, On Lies, Secrets, and
Mifflin) 142 Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978
(Norton) 143
Painted Devils. Robert Aickman Rime Isle. Fritz Leiber (Whispers Press,
(Charles Scribner’s Sons) 175 Chapel Hill, N.C., 1977) 135
Roberts, Keith, Pavane (Doubleday) 17 Speculations: An Introduction to Literature

Runyon, Charles W., Pig World Through Fantasy and Science Fiction.
(Doubleday) 78 Ed. Thomas E. Sanders (Glencoe
Press, Beverly Hills, California) 117
Sanders, Thomas E., ed., Speculations: Spinrad, Norman, Bug Jack Barron
An Introduction to Literature Through (Avon) 34
Fantasy and Science Fiction (Glencoe — Iron Dream, The (Avon) 94
Press, Beverly Hills, California) 117 Spinrad, Norman, ed., Modern Science
Santaroga Barrier, The. Frank Herbert Fiction (Anchor Press, New York) 119
(Berkley) 19 Star Mother. Sydney J. Van Scyoc
Sargent, Pamela, Cloned Lives (Fawcett (Berkley Putnam) 126
Gold Medal) 127 Star Road, The. Gordon Dickson
Satan’s World. Poul Anderson (Doubleday) 100
(Doubleday) 41 Star Trek: The New Voyages. Eds. Sondra
Satanists, The. Ed. Peter Haining Marshak and Myrna Culbreath
(Taplinger) 58 (Bantam) 127
Science Fiction: The Classroom in Orbit. Stealer of Souls and Stormbringer.
Beverly Friend (Educational Michael Moorcock (Lancer) 5
Impact, Inc., Glassboro, N.J., 1974) Stellar 1. Ed. Judy Lynn del Rey
120 (Ballantine) 114
Scortia, Thomas N., Strange Bedfellows: Still Small Voice of Trumpets, The. Lloyd
Sex and Science Fiction (Random Biggle (Doubleday) 15
House) 91 Strange Bedfellows: Sex and Science
Sea Horse in the Sky. Edmund Cooper Fiction. Ed. Thomas N. Scortia
(Putnam’s) 51 (Random House) 91
SF: Author’s Choice 2. Ed. Harry Strange Signposts, An Anthology of the
Harrison. (Berkley) 54 Fantastic. Ed. Roger Elwood and
Shackley, Robert, Can You Feel Sam Moskowitz (Holt Rinehart and
Anything When I Do This? Winston, 1966) 3
(Doubleday) 79 Sullivan, Charles Wm., III, ed., As
Shape of Utopia, The: Studies in a Literary Tomorrow Becomes Today (Prentice-
Genre. Robert C. Elliott (University Hall) 117
of Chicago Press, 1970) 68 Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic
Ship Who Sang, The. Anne McCaffrey Friendship and Love Between Women
(Walker) 39 from the Renaissance to the Present
Silverberg, Robert, Born With the Dead Lillian Faderman (Morrow, Quill
(Random House) 102 paperback) 188
— Cube Root of Uncertainty, The Sword Swallower, The. Ron Goulart
(Macmillan) 54 (Doubleday) 21
— Dying Inside (Scribner’s) 96
Silverberg, Robert, ed., New Dimensions Texas–Israeli War, The: 1999. Howard
9 (Harper & Row) 177 Waldrop and Jake Saunders
Simultaneous Man, The. Ralph Blum (Ballantine) 108
(Atlantic–Little Brown) 49 This Perfect Day. Ira Levin (Random
Small Changes. Hal Clement House) 46
(Doubleday) 24 Time Rogue. Leo P. Kelley (Lancer) 55
Some Dreams Are Nightmares. James Torrent of Faces, A. James Blish and
Gunn (Scribner’s) 105 Norman L. Knight (Doubleday) 10
Somerlott, Robert, Here, Mr. Splitfoot Total Eclipse. John Brunner
(Viking) 62 (Doubleday) 106
Transplant. Margaret Jones (Stein and Wilhelm, Kate, Abyss (Doubleday) 64

Day) 20 — Clewiston Test, The (Farrar, Straus
and Giroux) 122
Universe 9. Ed. Terry Carr (Doubleday — Let the Fire Fall (Doubleday) 29
& Company) 176 Wilson, Colin, Mind Parasites, The
Ursula K. Le Guin’s Science Fiction (Arkham House) 7
Writing Workshop: The Altered I. Ed. Wolfe, Gene, Operation Ares (Berkley)
Lee Harding (Berkley, New York) 57
148 Woman’s Creation: Sexual Evolution and
the Shaping of Society. Elizabeth
Van Scyoc, Sydney J., Star Mother Fisher (McGraw-Hill, New York,
(Berkley Putnam) 126 1980) 185
Vance, Jack, Emphyrio (Doubleday) 36 World’s Best Science Fiction: 1968 (Ace)
31
Waldrop, Howard, and Jake Saunders,
Texas–Israeli War, The: 1999 Year’s Finest Fantasy, The. Ed. Terry
(Ballantine) 108 Carr (Berkley Putnam, New York,
Warriors of the Day, The. James Blish 1978) 136
(Lancer) 4 Yesterday’s Children. David Gerrold
What Entropy Means To Me. George Alec (Fawcett Popular Library) 172
Effinger (Doubleday) 85 Young, Donna J., Retreat As It Was!
What Happened to Emily Goode After the (The Naiad Press, 7800 Westside
Great Exhibition. Raylyn Moore Dr., Weatherby Lake, Missouri,
(Donning [Scarblaze], Norfolk, Va., 64152) 181
1978) 133
White, Jane, Comet (Harper) 126 Zelazny, Rogert, Lord of Light
(Doubleday) 6

The Country You Have Never Seen Essays and Reviews by Joanna Russ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Country You Have Never Seen Essays and Reviews by Joanna Russ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Country You Have Never Seen Essays and Reviews by Joanna Russ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Country never seen - revised text:Layout 1 19/6/07 16:27 Page i

THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies

Essays and Reviews

Liverpool University Press

First published 2007 by

Copyright © 2007 Joanna Russ

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data

ISBN 978-0-85323-859-1 cased

Typeset by XL Publishing Services Ltd, Tiverton

Index of Books and Authors Reviewed 299

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, December 1966

Strange Signposts is a bottom-of-the barrel anthology. There are Big Names

4 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, October 1967

6 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, January 1968

Lord of Light draws on classical Indian culture to recreate it on a future

He [the President of the United States] asked how we proposed to

8 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

I have an announcement to make too. It concerns a severe letter to

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, July 1968

The editor’s taste for “the human factor” – or a retrospective interest in

10 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

A Torrent of Faces is written by James Blish and Norman L. Knight. This

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, December 1968

In the field of science fiction or fantasy, morality – when it enters a books

12 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

it to its logical outcome. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does

2 Arthur Waley, Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China (Doubleday Anchor

14 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Black Easter is in itself a sign of this change. It is not only about an

is constantly entering into new associations with every other element.

The Doomsday Men by Kenneth Bulmer is more pretentious and fails in

16 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Philip José Farmer’s Flesh is “a revised and expanded version of a novel by

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, April 1969

18 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Frank Herbert is an interesting writer, or perhaps I should say an inter-

20 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Santaroga is the story of a “consciousness fuel” (a consciousness-

Jenny, he thought. Jenny … Jenny … (p. 16) … Jenny … Jenny … (same

After a good deal of unnecessary mystification and travelling into the

Omar by Wilfrid Blunt is “A fantasy for animal lovers.” It is pleasant,

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, August 1969

Southern California wackiness consists not only of odd-ball phenomena but

22 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Avram Davidson’s The Phoenix and the Mirror is an oddly dragging,

24 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

Perhaps Mr. Davidson is trying to imitate the stylization-cum-actuality

Mr. Clement’s world is certainly limited (hardly anything in these stories

26 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

teristics of avant-garde writing outside science fiction. What vexes people

7 Conquests is a collection of seven previously published stories by Poul

1 MAD magazine’s name for Hitchcock.

28 THE COUNTRY YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, September 1969

The Prometheus Project: Mankind’s Search for Long-Range Goals. Gerald

… modifications … may involve … psychological conditioning of