Living in Galactic Suburbia

When we named our podcast Galactic Suburbia, I quite naturally googled the name. What kept popping up was a book by Lisa Yaszek, from 2008, of that name. She didn’t invent the term; no, that was Our Heroine, Joanna Russ, and I do believe she was using the term in a derogatory way. Yaszek, though, has written this book to reclaim the term, and to point out the subversive, radical, and altogether fascinating things that female writers of ‘galactic suburbia’-type stories were up to, in the roughly two decades following WW2.

Few things about this book to get out of the way first.
1. Although I don’t think it has come out of a thesis, it’s written like a thesis – and I know this because it sounds like mine. There’s lots of “in this chapter I have…”, which in a book actually gets pretty old pretty fast. But as with all writing, if you know the tropes, you can just skip over it.
2. It’s very American. There are a few points at which she mentions things that happened in Britain, but not many. Thing is, though, that she rarely comes out and says that it’s an American book. The reader is left to figure this out themselves from references to the civil rights movement etc that only make sense in an American context. As an Australian reader I found this somewhat alienating and off-putting.
3. She uses ‘woman’ as an adjective. Now, I presume this is because of issues over gender/sex identification, etc, but it still bugs me because ‘woman’ is a noun, not an adjective. Even more than that, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone described as a ‘man writer’, whereas ‘woman writer’ seems totally de rigeur. Is it just me, or is ‘female writer’ less offensive – when it has to be specified at all, that is?

Anyway, these quibble aside – and I know they’re basically minor – I really enjoyed GS. I’ve been hugely enjoying my exploration of feminist science fiction from the 20th century, and acquainting myself with what I am increasingly identifying as ‘my’ history. But because I’m coming to it all largely through later anthologies, I fall into the very trap Yaszek sets out to rectify: that writers and anthologisers post-second wave feminism, in the 60s and 70s, have mostly discounted the writings of those women active in the 40s and 50s. Now, my 20th century history is so poor in areas like this that I didn’t realise this period is traditionally seen as a nadir of feminism, so I was quite blind to the sorts of history re-visioning that has, often not deliberately, gone on. And it makes me terribly sad that later historians of the field have apparently discounted women who were powerful in the time because they didn’t live up to those later ideals, which seems to be where Russ was coming from.

The book very cleverly places historical context and literary analysis together, over four chapters: Writers, Homemakers, Activists, and Scientists. In each chapter Yaszek uses contemporary events, non-genre writing, ads, etc to set the scene for those topics, and then puts forward case studies of authors who examined those issues in their SF writing.

In Writers, she looks at Judith Merril, Alice Eleanor Jones, and Shirley Jackson as three very different, contemporaries who all experienced significant success in their writing, and how they approached their writing – their influences, how they played with generic expectations and tropes.

The chapter on Homemakers was perhaps my favourite, and it made me realise that I really do like ‘galactic suburbia’ writing when it’s done well. I like imagining everyday life in the future. I adore the truly escapist writing – space ships, explosions, crazy adventures – but considering the impact of technology, or war, or alien contact on the things that I experience everyday? That’s breathtaking. And the other thing that was absorbing about this chapter was the contextualisation. I’ve seen the pictures, I know a bit about postwar America’s attitudes etc; but gosh it made me happy to be a child of the 80s, and an adult of the 00s. I’m allowed into the workplace; I’m welcomed into the workplace (hello, Mr Abbott). Should I choose to have children, I would still be welcomed into the workplace. Nyer nyer nyer. Most bizarre was the suggestion that by being a good housekeeper and mother, American women were being patriotic domestic cold warriors – fighting the good fight against Communism in their homes. I feel that this is one of the big differences between America and Australia; I just don’t see that sort of parliamentary politics being part of our households.

The Activists chapter was fascinating because for all my bluster that SF can be a magnificent way of exploring contemporary issues in a sophisticated way, I forget that sort of connection especially when I read older stories. To be shown ways in which authors interacted with the two most pressing postwar American issues – the threat of nuclear war and the civil rights movement – was uplifting, and exciting, and suggests ways in which modern writers can do the same. I know there are writers interacting with climate change etc now, but… I guess I hope they continue to do so. Yaszek certainly suggests that such writing can be powerful for change.

Finally, the last chapter is on Scientists, looking at both the ways in which female scientists were presented in mainstream media and science fiction, and at the women who wrote scientific books and columns. Did you know that there was a programme called WISE – Women in Space Early? Me neither. But how cool is that?? (It was run by a man named Lovelace!) Pity it got canned awfully quickly. Did you know that women wrote a lot of science books, especially natural history, for young readers? And wrote science columns for the SF magazines? Yeh. Sad, isn’t it? Anyway – great chapter, exploring those representations, the options available in reality and what authors could imagine.

The book finishes by looking at how these progenitors (progenitrices?) have influenced the field today. She points out a few men who have started incorporating galactic suburbia into their writing, and how gay&lesbian writing has also coopted some aspects. I wonder if we could have a revival of galactic suburbia? We’ve got space opera, and steampunk, and mannerpunk, and the new weird… maybe there’s room for sophisticated domestic SF, too. That would be nice.

As I said above, one of the things reading these sorts of histories makes me realise is that I am so glad I live today. And I actually really hope that my goddaughter and my pseudo-nieces think exactly the same thing, when they compare the world of their birth with the world of their adulthood.

Day 20

Day 20 – Favorite kiss

I can’t answer this one. My memory fails me.

This meme is really reminding me of just how bad my memory is. (Ha.) I mean, I remember going all gooey over Sorry and Meg kissing in The Changeover, and I was all FINALLY when Lizzie and Darcy got it on… did Hazel and Owen ever actually kiss? I don’t recall. But… yeh. I like teh kissing, but for whatever reason it doesn’t tend to stick in my head.

Day 19

Day 19 – Favorite book cover

I don’t own of them, but the new Penguin covers have me pining for more shelves and the money to buy all of them, just because they look so pretty together.

I’ve also been trying to upload an image of Feminist Philosophy and Science Fiction, but on that task I have FAILED.

Day 18

Day 18 – Favorite beginning scene in a book

Another impossible question for me to answer, because I really don’t tend to pay that much attention to opening scenes. That is, obviously they’re important, because a bad scene will put me right off. But I still have a niggling sense that starting a book means finishing it, so I probably give books more leeway than perhaps I ought. Pawn of Prophecy, the first book of the Belgariad, starts off in a seriously boring way, but I still kept reading… several times.

That said, when you realise that Jane Austen is actually writing from an ironic point of view, the classic “It is a truth universally acknowledged…” sets the scene of Pride and Prejudice brilliantly. Especially in light of Mrs Bennett. And Tansy Rayner Roberts’ opening scene of Power and Majesty – a young girl waking up to see naked men falling out of the sky – is certainly an attention-grabber.

Day 17

Day 17 – Favorite story or collection of stories (short stories, novellas, novelettes, etc.)

New Space Opera 1, edited by Jonathan Strahan and Gardner Dozois, 2007

Discovering that there was a name for my favourite sort of sf was a major revelation. It turns out I adore good space opera. You get social drama and galaxy-spanning adventures and, usually, some awesome explosions. Winner! NSO brings together a whole bunch of very awesome writers with quite different takes on the genre, and it creates a rather heady mix of galactic civilisations, marvelous characters, and twisty crunchy plots.

Daughters of Earth, edited by Justine Larbalestier.
A collection of women’s science fiction from the twentieth century, basically one a decade from the 1920s, accompanied by a critical essay examining it in the context of its times and its impact on the field as a whole. It’s marvellous and introduced me to amazing stories, more writers I need to read, and incredibly interesting ways of thinking about science fiction as a field.

Van Helsing: the nth+1 rewatch

Spoilers ahoy!

I don’t, as a general rule, do werewolves. And I don’t do vampires. Unless they are being hunted by Hugh Jackman or Wesley Snipes, or played by Kate Beckinsale or Richard Roxburgh.

I probably don’t have all the necessary background knowledge to fully appreciate the movie Van Helsing as much as I might like, because I’ve never actually read Frankenstein or Dracula, or any of the canonical werewolf stories. I think I know them fairly well, at least enough to get a majority of the references – like the Creature sailing off at the end of the movie – but there are probably some in-jokes that I miss. Still, I love Van Helsing. I’ve watched it countless times: it’s one of my fall-backs, for when I want a good action romp but don’t necessarily want to give it my full attention.

We watched most of it last night, and finished it off this morning, cos toooo tired. And I got a bit reflective.

Van Helsing himself: I like Hugh Jackman. I really do. I think he has a good acting range, and – having watched the blooper reel for the first time – he seems like a nice guy ‘in real life’. But I grow increasingly unconvinced by that hair, in this role. Aside from that… I think the mythology they’re suggesting for Van Helsing in this movie is totally awesome, and a little part of me wishes there could be a sequel, or prequel, to flesh that out some more. One of the my favourite parts of the whole movie is Dracula crooning “Gabriel… oh Gabriel…” because it’s so spooky. The movie, I presume, is suggesting that Van Helsing is the archangel Gabriel, sent to do God’s dirty work in the world, including killing he-who-became-Dracula – who was presumably a Very Naughty Boy even before he made his deal with the devil. The idea that at some point Gabriel had his memory wiped is intriguing, and I really want to know why: did he disobey God? Was it actually God being compassionate, seeking to give him a better life? And if so, did he become the Vatican’s hitman because it is all he knows? So many questions, and yet such fervent hope that they will never be answered, because no film could do it justice.

Dracula: Richard Roxburgh is so awesome. I could make an obvious joke here comparing Dracula with Bob Hawke, but I won’t… unlike with Jackman’s hair, I think the costume department struck the perfect note for Dracula, from head to toe. Not sleazy, as with many vampires, but delightfully understated in a “I am so rich that I don’t need to wear a shirt emblazoned with Armani” kind of way. I think Roxburgh delivers his lines perfectly – he has such great timing – and his angst over his children is held in wonderful tension with the fact that he doesn’t actually feel anything (he says). I really, really like the fact that we never see him as Dracula until the very end, fighting Jackman-as-werewolf.

The brides: is it just me, or do we never actually find out the brunette’s name is? Anyway, I love the brides. They are very trampy, of course, in their dress, but they’re also vicious killing machines. And they show sisterly solidarity; I’ve seen Big Love, I know how important that is in a polygamous situation. And, the line “hhhello, Anna” is also an awesome one.

Carl: who doesn’t love David Wenham? This is such a hilarious role for him – and, of course, he’s the third Aussie in this cast, which I think is quite remarkable for a Hollywood movie. I love his turn as a medieval Q, and I think he does it delightfully. No Diver Dan and no Faramir; a slightly bumbling monk – sorry, friar – trying to keep his big hulking friend out of trouble. So, much like any other sidekick then. Still, he’s fun.

Anna: ah, Anna. Such ridiculous costuming. Seriously, that corset? And those leggings? Crazy. And who the hell thinks you can run in those boots? Oh right, a male director who wants to appeal to testosterone-crazy boys…. Anyway, I don’t mind Anna. I like that she is mostly self-reliant, that she doesn’t fall for Van Helsing immediately, and that’s she totally impatient with thinking about the situation and just wants to run headlong into it. The one thing that bugs me about her, really – and about the plot as a whole – is that she seems a bit flighty. Seriously, would she really abandon her whole family to Purgatory in an attempt to save her brother, when she doesn’t yet know that Dracula has a cure? Pft.

Igor: I was way more excited than is, perhaps, appropriate when I discovered that Igor was played by the same man as played Benny in The Mummy (“Hey O’Connell, looks like I’ve got all the horses!”). He makes a magnificent henchman, and I really like his delivery, too.

The Creature: eh. I don’t have particularly strong feelings for him either way. He’s obviously meant to come across as noble and self-sacrificing, as opposed to everyone who wants to kill him and thinks that he’s a monster. But sometimes he just comes across as a willing martyr; perhaps that’s when I’m in a particularly cynical mood. I do like the costume, though, with the random green lights.

The plot: oh yeh, I guess there is one. I like the battle with Mr Hyde, even if it is fairly extraneous, except for setting Van Helsing up as a misunderstood soul. First big problem: why did the Vatican wait until only the two Valerius children were left before sending Van Helsing? Particularly when the Cardinal know that there is a link between Van Helsing and the situation there, what the insignia on the scroll and his ring being the same? It makes the Vatican seem unnecessarily selfish. Moving on… I like that the brother became a werewolf, but I think that it could have been done better.

Watching it this time, there are gaping plot holes all over the place, which nearly put a dampener on my enjoyment of the movie. Particularly, that’s an awfully long time between the first and twelfth peels of the bell, when Van Helsing becomes a werewolf. But… I choose to ignore those holes. The characters are interesting enough, and the effects are good enough, that I am happy to put my critical faculties largely on hold and just enjoy it. Because if I can’t do that, then I will never be able to watch a good exploding action movie again, and then my life would be over.

Also, I was reminded on this rewatch how much I like the music in this film. During the carriage race it really adds to the drama, and there are a few bits where Van Helsing’s theme adds delightful atmosphere.

Day 16 – up to date!

Day 16 – Favorite poem or collection of poetry

There is basically no competition here, for me.

Holy Sonnet No.10, John Donne

Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think’st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell’st thou then;
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

I used to know this off by heart. I should remind myself of it more often.

Day 15 – belated, as well

Day 15 – Your “comfort” book

Depends entirely on my mood and why I need comforting.
I’ve recently been reading all the Eddings I can get my hands on; that’s been pretty comforting.

Juliet Marillier’s Wildwood Dancing and Cybele’s Secret are comforting because they’re so easy to read and I love the characters – and the romance.

Hmm. You know what? Embarrassing admission: I think the comforting books are the ones with romances I enjoy. So, in movies I like Han&Leia, I like The Fifth Element for all the awesome action and explosions but so much for the love-angle… and this goes on, and on, in many of my favourite flicks. So I think the same thing applies to books (see previous posts – The Changeover etc). However, I’ve realised in thinking about this question that actually, my recent re-reading of Eddings aside, I haven’t done much comfort RE-reading in a long, long time. I tend to read new stuff instead – new for me, anyway. Which is… interesting. Although I am now feeling the love of the re-read, and am wondering about diving back into the Deathstalker series….

Day 14 – belated!

Day 14 – Favorite character in a book
This is an impossible question to answer!
Beldin – for being so rude, and so utterly wonderful at the same time. I wish Eddings had put in some actual profanity.
Lizzie Bennett – well, duh. I want to BE her.
Aragon. Just because.
Lady Macbeth – so strong, so loving, so loved, and so utterly tragic.
Kassa Daggersharp – she has a birthmark the colour of dried blood.
Kristy Thomas – because not being fashionable, and being a loud-mouth, doesn’t prevent you from having friends and being really quite awesome.

Galactic Suburbia #13!

You can go to Galactic Suburbia to listen or download; it will be on iTunes aaaany time now, once a small glitch is corrected!

In which we discuss girl heroes, boy books, sexy zombies with whips, why proofing makes Alisa’s brain hurt, how many limbs get hacked off in David Eddings novels, and analyse what SF awards actually mean to us.

News
Ditmar nominations now up

Author Hannah Moskowitz complains at the lack of and treatment of boy characters in YA.
Tamora Pierce responds with a discussion of why she writes girl protagonists.

What have we been reading/listening to?
Tansy: The King’s Bastard, Rowena Cory Daniells; The Loving Dead by Amelia Beamer. Listening to: Starship Sofa 142 & 144, Notes from Coode St
Alisa: books she is publishing, including SPRAWL
Alex: the Belgariad, David Eddings. Worlds Next Door, edited by Tehani Wessely.

Pet Subject
The value in awards for writers/publishers/readers.
The value in awards when they become a long-running thing (ie does it mean more to get a Tiptree now that it’s been going for a long time?).
Difference between fan-voted, peer-voted, and judged awards.

Feedback, etc: galacticsuburbia@gmail.com