So...what's everyone reading?

[fuzzyoctopus]

Izzy- 'cause that's just the way Dahl is.  What about the children being eaten by big disgusting giants?  He's one of those people that has to tone their writing down for kids.
Have you read any of his non-childrens' fiction?  If not, you should- it's excellent.  Chris has a whole collection so you can borrow it from him.

As to the hardcover book- I just found out that my old beat-up copy of "Citizen of the Galaxy" is actually worth something, because it's a 1957 printing.  Go fig.

[Mistress of Darkness]

But, then, like you're ever going to sell right?

I'll have to borrow some from Chris (pending his approval of course) after I finish rereading James and The Secret Garden and some of Diana Wynne Jones's other books.

Was it you who told me that you liked Soul Music by Terry Pratchett? I finished it last month. It was great.

[stacer]

I don't know how I feel about Wrede's stuff. I've only read Dealing with Dragons, and I enjoyed it, but there was something rather antifeminist in a book that was supposedly quite feminist. I do like how clever the princess what's-her-name is and still want to read the rest of them.

I remember loving Roald Dahl as a kid. I remember reading James and all the Charlie books, too. Loved them all. I can't imagine liking them now, though. I should read them again to test this theory. I have a feeling that I must have glossed over the more disgusting humor, or that my sense of humor has changed since I was 10 (go figure).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

The hardest I've ever seen my mom laugh was when discussing the after-meal activities of the BFG.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Your mom sounds fun, Saint.

[Mistress of Darkness]

BFG? What's that?

[fuzzyoctopus]

Why he's the Big Friendly Giant, of course.

It's a great book- you can borrow it from me sometime.

[Mistress of Darkness]

Cool! Thanks fuzzy.

Yep, I'm definately having problems with James. But it's short so I am going to finish it anyway. I also dug out my copy of Rats of Nimh and The Secret Garden, but I am considering skipping them. It's hard to go from A Room With a View to books that I read when I was a preteen.

What did you think was anti-feminist about Dealing With Dragons, stacer? I'm interested because I don't think I've ever looked at the book critically before.

[Fellfrosch]

I've decided that I need to read some more of the genre classics, having enjoyed the Elric books so much last month, so last week at the library I picked up a Philip K. Dick collection and so far I'm pretty impressed. Since people love making movies out of his stuff, someone really needs to make a movie out of Paycheck.

I also grabbed another Gaiman book, apparently his first. It's called Neverwhere, and what I've read of it is also very good.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Yeah, I just read PKD's The Man Who Japed. I also just finished readin all the stories and essays in the Prentice Hall anthology of SF.

[stacer]

What did you think was anti-feminist about Dealing With Dragons, stacer? I'm interested because I don't think I've ever looked at the book critically before.

In general, there are some really nice feminist things going on--the princess is the one making decisions for her life, makes some good friends, is becoming educated about dragon-ness. But then some other things are against the grain, such as her going into servitude to be a cook to a dragon--from princess to servant. Plus, she (what is her name, anyway?) fits a trend of the time, that of female heroes who are basically men in women's clothing. Robin Mckinley's Hero and the Crown and The Blue Sword's Harry is a similar hero--a girl hero who is a hero because she rejects her femininity. Granted, at least in Dealing with Dragons the princess doesn't reject all things feminine--she still enjoys cooking, and uses thinking skills as well as sheer brawn (or its substitute, magic) to solve political problems among the dragons.

Come to think of it, now that I'm looking at it, I'm not really sure what my arguments are. I have a stronger case against books like the one I have to read right now for class, Alanna and the First Adventure, in which a lord's daughter, Alanna, wants to be a knight and so disguises herself as a boy, because being a knight is preferable to learning to be a lady--it is better, not just different.

That said, I really don't have anything against books in which girls kick butt, both physically and mentally. Certainly Dragons does it with humor. Robin McKinley's books are some of my favorites. But looking through a feminist lens, one begins to wonder, does a character have to act "male" in order to be considered a worthy hero? Is physical strength "male"? If not, why do feminists consider it to be, and how can a woman who considers herself a moderate feminist help change that view?

Also--why can't a female hero be at once feminine and physically fit/aggressive/etc.? Can't she enjoy needlepoint at home, wearing nice dresses from time to time, but getting on the horse and running a few monsters through from time to time? If I ever get around to writing a book, that girl would be my hero. Come to think of it, that girl is me, sans monsters.  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

See, I find that argument interesting. Because some feminist critics would argue that saying things like needlepoint and cooking are inherently feminine is incredibly sexist. Their only problem with the girl who disguises herself as a boy to go be a knight is that she had to disguise herself as a boy, which would be blamed on the male establishment, not the character or (directly) the author. Joan of Arc, remember, is a big hero to these types of feminists.

I'm not trying to contradict or throw you off. I just think it's interesting that there are two MAJOR philosophical camps in the one group we call "feminism."

[stacer]

No, I know what you mean, Saint. I'm just not of that camp.

[Mistress of Darkness]

Cimorene. And I'm not sure I agree with the servitude comment. For Cimorene it was more of a job. She was Kazul's "secretary", if you will, and Cimorene was paid in knowledge and freedom. For the other princesses it was more along the lines of exchanges of status. It was a mark of status to have a princess, and it was a mark of status to be a dragon's princess. I actually think Wrede may have gone a little far to the feminist side in the second book, Searching for Dragons. But after getting married myself, some of the ways that Cimorene and Mendenbar interact are familiar, so maybe she's not as far off as I thought . And much of what could have been wrong is toned down in the third book.

I like McKinley as well, and I think that the Hillpeople have a different idea of femininity to which Harry conforms. But maybe I felt that way because all the hillpeople at that time fought in much the same way. Things may have been different in The Hero and the Crown which I haven't read in a while because I disagree with the love triangle.

But I completely agree with your feminist comment. Dresses are completely girly, but what's wrong with them? Why can't I roleplay a mercenary who weilds an ax, but wears a dress to formal occasions? I still haven't figured this out. It's funny how some feminist camps would make us feel just as ashamed of our talents and pursuits as our predecessors felt.

[EUOL]

Here's what I say to that, however:  Why does the 'heroic' female have to be heroic in traditional masculine ways?  Not that there's anything wrong with the sword-wielding female, but Stacer's comment about women having to 'become men' to be heroes interested me.  

If slaying a hundred orcs is a masculine paradigm for heroism (let's just assume, for a moment, that it is that simple,) then can't we create a woman who is equally strong-minded, determined, and heroic--yet doesn't have to go around killing said orcs to prove her heroism?  Could she be a hero by exemplifying feminine strengths in the same way our warrior exemplifies masculine strength?