Discussion:
"The Silver Chair" - ever notice this, late in the book?
(too old to reply)
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-02 22:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SPOILER








When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)

Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform - otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks silly.


Lenona.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-04-02 22:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform - otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks silly.
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head in the
ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise move. Also,
much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill him when he's tied
up, rather than strike at aforementioned swordsman and find that instead
of fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.

Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-02 23:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake
reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her
to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was
presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of
course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it
presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform -
otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks
silly.
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining
the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head
in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise
move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill
him when he's tied up, rather than strike at aforementioned
swordsman and find that instead of fangs striking flesh, sword
is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's
not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
All very true, but I do feel compelled to point out that venomous
snakes do not, so far as I know, also constrict to immobilize the
prey. Of course, they're not sentient, and thus, are not so good at
planning.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-04-03 03:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake
reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her
to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was
presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of
course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it
presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform -
otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks
silly.
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining
the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head
in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise
move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill
him when he's tied up, rather than strike at aforementioned
swordsman and find that instead of fangs striking flesh, sword
is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
All very true, but I do feel compelled to point out that venomous
snakes do not, so far as I know, also constrict to immobilize the
prey.
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 04:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake
reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for
her to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when
she was presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of
course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it
presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform
- otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks
silly.
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
All very true, but I do feel compelled to point out that
venomous snakes do not, so far as I know, also constrict to
immobilize the prey.
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A
lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often
portrayed pythons as venomous.
They can also assume that their readers are smart, and don't need
stuff explained to them.

Your scenario is rather more likely than mine.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Carl Fink
2017-04-03 12:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Peter Trei
2017-04-03 13:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
This. Also, trying to make canon out of one particular artists depiction (even
if he's the first, and most traditional) is a questionable undertaking.

CS Lewis was a smart man, but I don't know any reason to think he'd studied
herpetology beyond Genesis.

pt
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-03 13:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
This. Also, trying to make canon out of one particular artists depiction (even
if he's the first, and most traditional) is a questionable undertaking.
Nitpick: She. Pauline Baynes, who also illustrated (inter alia)
Tolkien's _Songs of Tom Bombadil_ and _Farmer Giles of Ham_.
Post by Peter Trei
CS Lewis was a smart man, but I don't know any reason to think he'd studied
herpetology beyond Genesis.
Nope. He was a classicist and ardent Scandinavian-mythology
fanboi. He said of himself in mid-adolescence, "If I could have
found anyone to teach me Old Norse, I believe I would have worked
hard at it." He read (= majored in) philosophy at Oxford, and
since there were no jobs going for philosophy majors, spent an
extra year reading English. I don't suppose he took any science
courses whatever, though he read popular articles on science and
had a decent layman's knowledge of physics and astronomy.
Whether he ever learned *any* biology, I've no idea.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Peter Trei
2017-04-03 15:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
This. Also, trying to make canon out of one particular artists depiction (even
if he's the first, and most traditional) is a questionable undertaking.
Nitpick: She. Pauline Baynes, who also illustrated (inter alia)
Tolkien's _Songs of Tom Bombadil_ and _Farmer Giles of Ham_.
I sit corrected, thank you. I briefly considered checking before I posted, but
didn't. Bayne's illustrations are certainly what I think of when I consider
Narnia, like Tenniel's for 'Alice'.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
CS Lewis was a smart man, but I don't know any reason to think he'd studied
herpetology beyond Genesis.
Nope. He was a classicist and ardent Scandinavian-mythology
fanboi. He said of himself in mid-adolescence, "If I could have
found anyone to teach me Old Norse, I believe I would have worked
hard at it." He read (= majored in) philosophy at Oxford, and
since there were no jobs going for philosophy majors, spent an
extra year reading English. I don't suppose he took any science
courses whatever, though he read popular articles on science and
had a decent layman's knowledge of physics and astronomy.
Whether he ever learned *any* biology, I've no idea.
That's my impression too. Narnia is magic, and does not need to conform
to science.

The Space Trilogy (which is older) has more 'sciencey' bits in it, but
not much, and not very worked out. Weston's spaceship seems to have enough
mass to provide some gravity inside it, for example.

pt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-03 16:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 08:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
That's my impression too. Narnia is magic, and does not need to conform
to science.
Which is good, since it doesn't.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
1***@compuserve.com
2017-04-03 18:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
This. Also, trying to make canon out of one particular artists depiction (even
if he's the first, and most traditional) is a questionable undertaking.
Case in point: this very same illustrator (Pauline Baynes) also illustrated Tolkien's "Smith of Wooten Major". Now, there is a typo in some editions, corrected in others, wherein the protagonist sees variously "Elven mariners" or "Eleven mariners", all armored up for battle.

Now, you can't see in the illustration whether they have pointy ears, because they're all wearing helmets. But there _are_ eleven of them!

JimboCat
--
What in the other world is the powers of the Valar or Eru acting against Sauron, in Middle Earth appear as small coincidences, blunders and mistakes, shifts in a persons mood, small things that gather and change the world. A theology of errors. - John Swanson
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-03 21:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by 1***@compuserve.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
This. Also, trying to make canon out of one particular artists depiction (even
if he's the first, and most traditional) is a questionable undertaking.
Case in point: this very same illustrator (Pauline Baynes) also
illustrated Tolkien's "Smith of Wooten Major". Now, there is a typo in
some editions, corrected in others, wherein the protagonist sees
variously "Elven mariners" or "Eleven mariners", all armored up for
battle.
Now, you can't see in the illustration whether they have pointy ears,
because they're all wearing helmets. But there _are_ eleven of them!
Heh.

Reminiscent of St. Ursula and her eleven thousand companions.

Hint: A Roman father tended to name his eldest daughter with
the feminine form of his family name, e.g. Marcus Tullius would
name his first daughter Tullia. His second daughter, Tullia
Secunda, or just Secunda.

Suggestion: Somebody had a daughter named Undedimilla,
"Eleventh." (Which is easily mistaken for undecim milia, "eleven
thousand.") I suspect St. Ursula had one companion with ten
elder sisters.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-03 22:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by 1***@compuserve.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
This. Also, trying to make canon out of one particular artists depiction (even
if he's the first, and most traditional) is a questionable undertaking.
Case in point: this very same illustrator (Pauline Baynes) also
illustrated Tolkien's "Smith of Wooten Major". Now, there is a typo in
some editions, corrected in others, wherein the protagonist sees
variously "Elven mariners" or "Eleven mariners", all armored up for
battle.
Now, you can't see in the illustration whether they have pointy ears,
because they're all wearing helmets. But there _are_ eleven of them!
Heh.
Reminiscent of St. Ursula and her eleven thousand companions.
Hint: A Roman father tended to name his eldest daughter with
the feminine form of his family name, e.g. Marcus Tullius would
name his first daughter Tullia. His second daughter, Tullia
Secunda, or just Secunda.
Suggestion: Somebody had a daughter named Undedimilla,
"Eleventh." (Which is easily mistaken for undecim milia, "eleven
thousand.") I suspect St. Ursula had one companion with ten
elder sisters.
Of course that still takes s bit of doing.
And these days, a TV reality show.
David Goldfarb
2017-04-03 22:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminiscent of St. Ursula and her eleven thousand companions.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who is, it should be noted, a practicing
Catholic herself) has a lovely post on Making Light some while back
called "Judging the dubiousness of saints".
<http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/002332.html#002332>
It gives a scale of how many credibility points to subtract for
various attributes. Some highlights:

-2 is a Celtic saint associated with a body of water
-6 is a Celtic saint known only through being associated with a
body of water

-1 is fun to draw

-2 has an entry in the _Oxford Dictionary of Saints_ which mentions
the word "Antioch"

-4 performed numerically improbable feats (traveling in company
with 11,000 virigns; simultaneoustly besting 50 philsophers in debate)
-5 is one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers (of whom there are nineteen)

-15 is a member of the current lineup of the X-Men
--
David Goldfarb |"The number of times I have been declared
***@gmail.com |dead is statistically insignificant,
***@ocf.berkeley.edu |although admittedly non-zero." -- James Nicoll
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 23:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminiscent of St. Ursula and her eleven thousand companions.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who is, it should be noted, a practicing
Catholic herself) has a lovely post on Making Light some while
back called "Judging the dubiousness of saints".
<http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/002332.html#002332
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
It gives a scale of how many credibility points to subtract
-2 is a Celtic saint associated with a body of water
-6 is a Celtic saint known only through being associated with a
body of water
-1 is fun to draw
-2 has an entry in the _Oxford Dictionary of Saints_ which
mentions the word "Antioch"
-4 performed numerically improbable feats (traveling in company
with 11,000 virigns; simultaneoustly besting 50 philsophers in
debate) -5 is one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers (of whom there
are nineteen)
-15 is a member of the current lineup of the X-Men
What's the minus for being buried in a cemetary with tens of
thousands of other saints? (Early Celtic Church standards for
sainthood were . . . not strict.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
l***@dimnakorr.com
2017-04-04 00:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Goldfarb
-15 is a member of the current lineup of the X-Men
What's the point deduction for defeating Doctor Doom with
an army of squirrels?
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Nuts, I tell you, nuts!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 16:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-04-03, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often
portrayed pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both
constricting and venomous.
Indeed. But then, the entire complaint that started this discussion
is pointless.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-04-05 06:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
True enough. In real life, I knew that boa constrictors were not venomous, but I had thought that pythons were both venomous and constricting.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2017-04-05 06:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
True enough. In real life, I knew that boa constrictors
were not venomous, but I had thought that pythons were
both venomous and constricting.
While I was mistaken in that,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constriction

notes that some real snakes are both constricting and
venomous, but all the examples they give are either
inefficient contractors, mildly venomous, or both; no known
snake is genuinely deadly both ways.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-05 14:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but in fiction it's very common to combine the two. A lot of
writers weren't that up on the difference. In fact, they often portrayed
pythons as venomous.
There's no special reason a fictional magic snake can't be both constricting
and venomous.
True enough. In real life, I knew that boa constrictors were not
venomous, but I had thought that pythons were both venomous and
constricting.
But the snake in question is a magical animal, not a natural
animal. (Currently rereading Wrede's Frontier Magic trilogy, so
the definitions come readily to mind.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
p***@hotmail.com
2017-04-04 01:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake
reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her
to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was
presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of
course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it
presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform -
otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks
silly.
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head
in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise
move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill
him when he's tied up, rather than strike at aforementioned
swordsman and find that instead of fangs striking flesh, sword
is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
All very true, but I do feel compelled to point out that venomous
snakes do not, so far as I know, also constrict to immobilize the
prey. Of course, they're not sentient, and thus, are not so good at
planning.
For that matter, venomous snakes can't climb, since the same
musculature is involved in climbing and constricting.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 01:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake
reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her
to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was
presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of
course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it
presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform -
otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks
silly.
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head
in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise
move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill
him when he's tied up, rather than strike at aforementioned
swordsman and find that instead of fangs striking flesh, sword
is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
All very true, but I do feel compelled to point out that venomous
snakes do not, so far as I know, also constrict to immobilize the
prey. Of course, they're not sentient, and thus, are not so good at
planning.
For that matter, venomous snakes can't climb, since the same
musculature is involved in climbing and constricting.
That would be news to the Madagascar Leaf Nosed Snake and many other snakes
indigenous to that island.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 05:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake
reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense
for her to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian
when she was presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere.
Of course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react
when it presumably took the witch only two seconds or so
to transform - otherwise, how could he have saved himself?
Still, it looks silly.
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal,
restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not
an unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO
strike and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike
at aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but
it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
All very true, but I do feel compelled to point out that
venomous snakes do not, so far as I know, also constrict to
immobilize the prey. Of course, they're not sentient, and
thus, are not so good at planning.
For that matter, venomous snakes can't climb, since the same
musculature is involved in climbing and constricting.
That would be news to the Madagascar Leaf Nosed Snake and many
other snakes indigenous to that island.
Madagasgar may well turn out to be on the other side of an
interdimensional portal.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Carl Fink
2017-04-04 14:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
For that matter, venomous snakes can't climb, since the same
musculature is involved in climbing and constricting.
That would be news to the Madagascar Leaf Nosed Snake and many other snakes
indigenous to that island.
Chinese tree viper (Trimeresurus stejnegeri)? Black tree cobra (Pseudohaje
nigra)? This one doesn't stand up to even superficial inspection.

I can't offhand think of a venomous tree-climbing snake *in North America*,
but so what?
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
J. Clarke
2017-04-05 12:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by p***@hotmail.com
For that matter, venomous snakes can't climb, since the same
musculature is involved in climbing and constricting.
That would be news to the Madagascar Leaf Nosed Snake and many other snakes
indigenous to that island.
Chinese tree viper (Trimeresurus stejnegeri)? Black tree cobra (Pseudohaje
nigra)? This one doesn't stand up to even superficial inspection.
I can't offhand think of a venomous tree-climbing snake *in North America*,
but so what?
Vine snake.
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-04 14:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
For that matter, venomous snakes can't climb, since the same
musculature is involved in climbing and constricting.
Um, wrong. Green mambas can climb trees. I learned that from a photo in Roald Dahl's "Going Solo." So can boomslangs and bush vipers and Bird/Twig snakes. And from one Australian poster on Facebook: "Most of our dangerously venomous snakes here in Oz are terrible climbers but they can and often do climb in search of food..." One such Australian snake is the brown tree snake (more dangerous to children than adult humans).


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-02 23:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head in the
ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise move. Also,
much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill him when he's tied
up, rather than strike at aforementioned swordsman and find that instead
of fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down his sword-arm. Also, as Puddleglum says in the next chapter: "She's the sort that wouldn't so much mind dying herself if she knew that the chap who killed her was going to be burned, or buried, or drowned five minutes later."
David Johnston
2017-04-03 17:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head in
the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise move.
Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill him when
he's tied up, rather than strike at aforementioned swordsman and
find that instead of fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your
head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra second
at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down his
sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One of the
reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works is because the
people who do it always screw around so much and haven't learned to
fight effectively in their alternate form.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 17:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-04-03 18:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.

In most environments which include humans, hands and feet are useful
things. Why not a dragon? Or a grizzly bear?

pt
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-04-03 18:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Genesis?
Post by Peter Trei
In most environments which include humans, hands and feet are useful
things. Why not a dragon? Or a grizzly bear?
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-03 18:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Now, there's a challenge! I'll see what I can do.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
You've read "The Compleat Werewolf," right?
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-04-03 20:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Now, there's a challenge! I'll see what I can do.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
You've read "The Compleat Werewolf," right?
Not sure. I know I've read some Boucher. If I did, it hasn't stayed
with me in memory green..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-03 20:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Now, there's a challenge! I'll see what I can do.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
You've read "The Compleat Werewolf," right?
Not sure. I know I've read some Boucher. If I did, it hasn't stayed
with me in memory green..
The title character in that finds uses for wolf form besides killing
-- eavesdropping (people assume he's a big dog), for example, and
terrorizing bad guys.

It's a really excellent story. I think you'd remember it if you read
it.

The protagonist is named Wolfe Wolfe; he's a professor of Germanic
languages, and it's set during WW2.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
David Johnston
2017-04-03 20:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Now, there's a challenge! I'll see what I can do.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
You've read "The Compleat Werewolf," right?
Not sure. I know I've read some Boucher. If I did, it hasn't stayed
with me in memory green..
The title character in that finds uses for wolf form besides killing
-- eavesdropping (people assume he's a big dog), for example, and
terrorizing bad guys.
It's a really excellent story. I think you'd remember it if you read
it.
The protagonist is named Wolfe Wolfe; he's a professor of Germanic
languages, and it's set during WW2.
As I recall he also got a lot of use out of being immune to conventional
bullets though.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-03 21:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:44:35 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Now, there's a challenge! I'll see what I can do.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
You've read "The Compleat Werewolf," right?
Not sure. I know I've read some Boucher. If I did, it hasn't stayed
with me in memory green..
The title character in that finds uses for wolf form besides killing
-- eavesdropping (people assume he's a big dog), for example, and
terrorizing bad guys.
It's a really excellent story. I think you'd remember it if you read
it.
The protagonist is named Wolfe Wolfe; he's a professor of Germanic
languages, and it's set during WW2.
As I recall he also got a lot of use out of being immune to conventional
bullets though.
True, but I didn't want to spoil that, and while it's standard
werewolf mythology, it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone who turns
into a wolf.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-04-03 21:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Now, there's a challenge! I'll see what I can do.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
You've read "The Compleat Werewolf," right?
Not sure. I know I've read some Boucher. If I did, it hasn't stayed
with me in memory green..
The title character in that finds uses for wolf form besides killing
-- eavesdropping (people assume he's a big dog), for example, and
terrorizing bad guys.
It's a really excellent story. I think you'd remember it if you read
it.
The protagonist is named Wolfe Wolfe; he's a professor of Germanic
languages, and it's set during WW2.
With those details I can definitely say I have not read it. I'll have
to seek it out, thanks!
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Peter Trei
2017-04-03 18:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Genesis?
Are you sure that's a transformation? Even if it is the Serpent got punished.

I just checked Genesis 3 (NIV). There's nothing there to suggest that
'the Serpent' is anything but a reptile. Sure, he can talk, but when
God punishes him, he doesn't recognize him as Lucifer Morningstar, the
Devil, Old Scratch, or anything other then an asshole of an animal.

When did that idea arise? While Satan is described as the 'ancient serpent' in
Revelations, that's very late (about 70AD), and again, there's nothing directly
connecting him to the snake in the Garden.

pt
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-04-03 20:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Genesis?
Are you sure that's a transformation? Even if it is the Serpent got punished.
I just checked Genesis 3 (NIV). There's nothing there to suggest that
'the Serpent' is anything but a reptile. Sure, he can talk, but when
God punishes him, he doesn't recognize him as Lucifer Morningstar, the
Devil, Old Scratch, or anything other then an asshole of an animal.
When did that idea arise? While Satan is described as the 'ancient serpent' in
Revelations, that's very late (about 70AD), and again, there's nothing directly
connecting him to the snake in the Garden.
pt
Well, it's tradition I suppose that's he's the Morningstar rather than text.
He got what he wanted at any rate.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Joe Pfeiffer
2017-04-03 19:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Genesis?
While the tempter is identified as a serpent from his first appearance,
his appearance isn't described. Being turned into a snake as we know
them ("You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days
of your life" was a curse. So, not an example.
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-03 20:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
Unless you need to move fast and/or you're just trying to scare someone...

http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=macdonald&book=northwind&story=old1&PHPSESSID=92e9631169d1474a884a1f7b1f42d808

(this is where the beautiful North Wind turns into a wolf and six-year-old Diamond, in terror, lets go of her and she runs upstairs into a house - she transforms back again before Diamond sees her again)

"Surely," he thought, "North Wind can't be eating one of the children!" Coming to himself all at once, he rushed after her with his little fist clenched. There were ladies in long trains going up and down the stairs, and gentlemen in white neckties attending on them, who stared at him, but none of them were of the people of the house, and they said nothing. Before he reached the head of the stair, however, North Wind met him, took him by the hand, and hurried down and out of the house.

"I hope you haven't eaten a baby, North Wind!" said Diamond, very solemnly.

North Wind laughed merrily, and went tripping on faster. Her grassy robe swept and swirled about her steps, and wherever it passed over withered leaves, they went fleeing and whirling in spirals, and running on their edges like wheels, all about her feet.

"No," she said at last, "I did not eat a baby. You would not have had to ask that foolish question if you had not let go your hold of me. You would have seen how I served a nurse that was calling a child bad names, and telling her she was wicked. She had been drinking. I saw an ugly gin bottle in a cupboard."

"And you frightened her?" said Diamond.

"I believe so!" answered North Wind laughing merrily. "I flew at her throat, and she tumbled over on the floor with such a crash that they ran in. She'll be turned away to-morrow—and quite time, if they knew as much as I do."

"But didn't you frighten the little one?"

"She never saw me. The woman would not have seen me either if she had not been wicked."

"Oh!" said Diamond, dubiously.

"Why should you see things," returned North Wind, "that you wouldn't understand or know what to do with? Good people see good things; bad people, bad things."

"Then are you a bad thing?"

"No. For you see me, Diamond, dear," said the girl, and she looked down at him, and Diamond saw the loving eyes of the great lady beaming from the depths of her falling hair.

"I had to make myself look like a bad thing before she could see me. If I had put on any other shape than a wolf's she would not have seen me, for that is what is growing to be her own shape inside of her."



Lenona.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-03 21:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
Genesis?
Post by Peter Trei
In most environments which include humans, hands and feet are useful
things. Why not a dragon? Or a grizzly bear?
It's interesting to think about how useless being able to turn into
a wolf is, if you are not in a fantasy adventure with people trying
to kill you or that you need to kill..
Closing lines from Anderson's "Operation Afreet:"

"As a wolf, I've got a stubby tail, and as a man I don't like to
sit down in wet weather. It's a hell of a thing to get a Purple
Heart for."
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 18:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 1:30:49 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining
the known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off
your head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is
not an unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you
DO strike and kill him when he's tied up, rather than
strike at aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of
fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's
not nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an
extra second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to
pin down his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic.
One of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost
never works is because the people who do it always screw
around so much and haven't learned to fight effectively in
their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't
know much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form.
(And most can't write a fight scene to save their lives
anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a
snake, whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any
combination thereof, turned out well for the changee.
I had a character in a roleplaying game that could turn into a
snake. He got beaned by a six year old kid with a stick.

So, yeah, I think you're on to something.
In most environments which include humans, hands and feet are
useful things. Why not a dragon? Or a grizzly bear?
That's what you get for using magic items that are imported from
China. It's probably covered in lead paint, too.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-04-03 23:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a snake,
whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination thereof,
turned out well for the changee.
_Conan the Barbarian_, when Thulsa Doom sees his big party going south,
turns into a gigantic snake and leaves the party alive, while most other
people ... don't.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Cryptoengineer
2017-04-04 03:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
I can't think of a single story in which turning oneself into a
snake, whether giant, constricting, poisonous, or any combination
thereof, turned out well for the changee.
_Conan the Barbarian_, when Thulsa Doom sees his big party going south,
turns into a gigantic snake and leaves the party alive, while most
other people ... don't.
I think you may have found one.

pt
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-03 21:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an
unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike
and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra
second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down
his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One
of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works
is because the people who do it always screw around so much and
haven't learned to fight effectively in their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't know
much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And most
can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
When I had to write a swordfighting scene for _A Point of Honor,_
I went to Sir Hilary of Serendip, who'd been training fighters
for a couple of decades at that point. She gave me some basic
lessons, and then I wrote the scene, and then she went over it,
saying "Good," or "No, that that way, this way." The scene was
much better for it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 22:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:53:57 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not
an unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO
strike and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's
not nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an
extra second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to
pin down his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic.
One of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never
works is because the people who do it always screw around so
much and haven't learned to fight effectively in their
alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't
know much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And
most can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
When I had to write a swordfighting scene for _A Point of
Honor,_ I went to Sir Hilary of Serendip, who'd been training
fighters for a couple of decades at that point. She gave me
some basic lessons, and then I wrote the scene, and then she
went over it, saying "Good," or "No, that that way, this way."
The scene was much better for it.
I assume that's SCA? While SCA sword fighting is not necessarily
all that hisorically accurate, it's far more commonly known than
anything that is, so yeah.

But the real question is, was it more entertaining to read?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-04 05:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not
an unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO
strike and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's
not nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an
extra second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to
pin down his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic.
One of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never
works is because the people who do it always screw around so
much and haven't learned to fight effectively in their
alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't
know much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form. (And
most can't write a fight scene to save their lives anyway.)
When I had to write a swordfighting scene for _A Point of
Honor,_ I went to Sir Hilary of Serendip, who'd been training
fighters for a couple of decades at that point. She gave me
some basic lessons, and then I wrote the scene, and then she
went over it, saying "Good," or "No, that that way, this way."
The scene was much better for it.
I assume that's SCA? While SCA sword fighting is not necessarily
all that hisorically accurate, it's far more commonly known than
anything that is, so yeah.
But the real question is, was it more entertaining to read?
How can I tell?

Someday it will be up online and you can read it and decide for
yourself.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 05:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining
the known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off
your head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him
is not an unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that
you DO strike and kill him when he's tied up, rather than
strike at aforementioned swordsman and find that instead
of fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's
not nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an
extra second at most to bite him on the leg before trying
to pin down his sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic.
One of the reasons why turning into a giant snake almost
never works is because the people who do it always screw
around so much and haven't learned to fight effectively in
their alternate form.
Well, no, not really. The real reason is that _writers_ don't
know much about fighting efficiently in the alternate form.
(And most can't write a fight scene to save their lives
anyway.)
When I had to write a swordfighting scene for _A Point of
Honor,_ I went to Sir Hilary of Serendip, who'd been training
fighters for a couple of decades at that point. She gave me
some basic lessons, and then I wrote the scene, and then she
went over it, saying "Good," or "No, that that way, this way."
The scene was much better for it.
I assume that's SCA? While SCA sword fighting is not necessarily
all that hisorically accurate, it's far more commonly known than
anything that is, so yeah.
But the real question is, was it more entertaining to read?
How can I tell?
In theory, that's what editors are for. In theory.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Someday it will be up online and you can read it and decide for
yourself.
Only if you have both versions.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-03 17:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head in
the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise move.
Also, much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill him when
he's tied up, rather than strike at aforementioned swordsman and
find that instead of fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your
head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not
nearly so ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra second
at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down his
sword-arm.
That's assuming she's being efficient rather than sadistic. One of the
reasons why turning into a giant snake almost never works is because the
people who do it always screw around so much and haven't learned to
fight effectively in their alternate form.
A good reason to give yourself as many options
as you can, and the main ones are squashing and
biting. If I was choosing to turn into a giant
snake and kill people - and I'm not saying that
I would -
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-03 20:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head in the
ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise move. Also,
much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill him when he's tied
up, rather than strike at aforementioned swordsman and find that instead
of fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra second at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down his sword-arm. Also, as Puddleglum says in the next chapter: "She's the sort that wouldn't so much mind dying herself if she knew that the chap who killed her was going to be burned, or buried, or drowned five minutes later."
And the other problem is that while yes, it was difficult for him to stab her at such close range when she didn't "waste" time trying to bite him first, in theory at least S. and P. would have had time to draw their swords and stab her while she was coiling around R.

(I've assumed that Jill didn't draw her knife mainly because she wasn't used to combat, since it was her first visit to Narnia - but, IMO, it was mainly because despite Lewis' inclusion of truly assertive girls like Aravis and Polly in the later books, he apparently never, IIRC, was comfortable with any GOOD female taking a life at close range - when Jill takes down an enemy or two in "The Last Battle," she does so only with her arrows.)


Lenona.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-03 21:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal, restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your head in the
ten seconds before your venom kills him is not an unwise move. Also,
much easier to be sure that you DO strike and kill him when he's tied
up, rather than strike at aforementioned swordsman and find that instead
of fangs striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra second
at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down his sword-arm.
Also, as Puddleglum says in the next chapter: "She's the sort that
wouldn't so much mind dying herself if she knew that the chap who killed
her was going to be burned, or buried, or drowned five minutes later."
And the other problem is that while yes, it was difficult for him to
stab her at such close range when she didn't "waste" time trying to bite
him first, in theory at least S. and P. would have had time to draw
their swords and stab her while she was coiling around R.
(I've assumed that Jill didn't draw her knife mainly because she wasn't
used to combat, since it was her first visit to Narnia - but, IMO, it
was mainly because despite Lewis' inclusion of truly assertive girls
like Aravis and Polly in the later books, he apparently never, IIRC, was
comfortable with any GOOD female taking a life at close range - when
Jill takes down an enemy or two in "The Last Battle," she does so only
with her arrows.)
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 22:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If your venom is not INSTANTANEOUSLY lethal,
restraining the
known-to-be-deadly swordsman so that he can't lop off your
head in the ten seconds before your venom kills him is not
an unwise move. Also, much easier to be sure that you DO
strike and kill him when he's tied up, rather than strike at
aforementioned swordsman and find that instead of fangs
striking flesh, sword is impaling your head.
Yes, you can argue it in the opposite direction, but
it's not nearly so
ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Very clever, but I would think it would only take her an extra second
at most to bite him on the leg before trying to pin down his
sword-arm. Also, as Puddleglum says in the next chapter: "She's
the sort that wouldn't so much mind dying herself if she knew
that the chap who killed her was going to be burned, or buried,
or drowned five minutes later."
And the other problem is that while yes, it was difficult for
him to stab her at such close range when she didn't "waste" time
trying to bite him first, in theory at least S. and P. would
have had time to draw their swords and stab her while she was
coiling around R.
(I've assumed that Jill didn't draw her knife mainly because she
wasn't used to combat, since it was her first visit to Narnia -
but, IMO, it was mainly because despite Lewis' inclusion of
truly assertive girls like Aravis and Polly in the later books,
he apparently never, IIRC, was comfortable with any GOOD female
taking a life at close range - when Jill takes down an enemy or
two in "The Last Battle," she does so only with her arrows.)
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've been
read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly be
published today.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Carl Fink
2017-04-04 13:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've been
read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly be
published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen collections of
Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for some years in his career,
his stories literally had no women *in* them. They literally happened in
male-only universes. When he finally did have female characters they were
Pulp Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach themselves to
a proper male, often the hero.

I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 16:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
Leinster's stories pretty much always have:

A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-04-04 17:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Dorothy was the hero of many of the Oz stories, and pulled her own
weight. The Oz books have many other powerful female figures,
including one who started out as a very ordinary boy, and became powerful
when she became a girl.

OTOH, Baum once proposed that the best solution of the (American) 'Indian
Problem' was genocide.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 17:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell.
(I've been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could
possibly be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that
for some years in his career, his stories literally had no
women *in* them. They literally happened in male-only
universes. When he finally did have female characters they
were Pulp Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and
attach themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued
by A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him
at the end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A
can get by just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the
greatest source of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as
consistently, but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not
all that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his
moments, too, though to a far lesser degree.
Dorothy was the hero of many of the Oz stories, and pulled her
own weight. The Oz books have many other powerful female
figures, including one who started out as a very ordinary boy,
and became powerful when she became a girl.
OTOH, Baum once proposed that the best solution of the
(American) 'Indian Problem' was genocide.
As I said, he had his moments.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-05 05:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell.
(I've been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could
possibly be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that
for some years in his career, his stories literally had no
women *in* them. They literally happened in male-only
universes. When he finally did have female characters they
were Pulp Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and
attach themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
And not always young, either. Consider Doctor Wossname whose
companion is Murgatroyd the _tormal_.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-05 16:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-4, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were
especially enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic
as hell. (I've been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of
it could possibly be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed
that for some years in his career, his stories literally
had no women *in* them. They literally happened in
male-only universes. When he finally did have female
characters they were Pulp Princesses, whose purpose was
entirely to find and attach themselves to a proper male,
often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
And not always young, either. Consider Doctor Wossname whose
companion is Murgatroyd the _tormal_.
Yeah, those are a bit of an exception.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-04 17:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Dorothy was the hero of many of the Oz stories, and pulled her own
weight. The Oz books have many other powerful female figures,
including one who started out as a very ordinary boy, and became powerful
when she became a girl.
Though she had started out as a girl to begin with, don't forget.
Post by Peter Trei
OTOH, Baum once proposed that the best solution of the (American) 'Indian
Problem' was genocide.
Did he title it "Another Modest Solution"?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-04 20:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Dorothy was the hero of many of the Oz stories, and pulled her own
weight. The Oz books have many other powerful female figures,
including one who started out as a very ordinary boy, and became powerful
when she became a girl.
Though she had started out as a girl to begin with, don't forget.
Post by Peter Trei
OTOH, Baum once proposed that the best solution of the (American) 'Indian
Problem' was genocide.
Did he title it "Another Modest Solution"?
I believe you're referring to "A Modest Proposal," not "Solution."
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 23:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
In article
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-4, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not
all that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his
moments, too, though to a far lesser degree.
Dorothy was the hero of many of the Oz stories, and pulled her
own weight. The Oz books have many other powerful female
figures, including one who started out as a very ordinary boy,
and became powerful when she became a girl.
Though she had started out as a girl to begin with, don't
forget.
OTOH, Baum once proposed that the best solution of the
(American) 'Indian Problem' was genocide.
Did he title it "Another Modest Solution"?
I believe you're referring to "A Modest Proposal," not
"Solution."
The word that usually precedes "solution" is "final." Which is not
entirely off base, either.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-05 04:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Dorothy was the hero of many of the Oz stories, and pulled her own
weight. The Oz books have many other powerful female figures,
including one who started out as a very ordinary boy, and became powerful
when she became a girl.
Though she had started out as a girl to begin with, don't forget.
Post by Peter Trei
OTOH, Baum once proposed that the best solution of the (American) 'Indian
Problem' was genocide.
Did he title it "Another Modest Solution"?
I believe you're referring to "A Modest Proposal," not "Solution."
You're right.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-04 17:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).

And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.

Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-04-04 17:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
However, don't forget that the ongoing subplot of the Tom Swift
series was his courtship of and eventual marriage to Mary Nestor.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-05 05:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
However, don't forget that the ongoing subplot of the Tom Swift
series was his courtship of and eventual marriage to Mary Nestor.
Oh sure. That would be after he grew up. (Did he ever? I never
read h im.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-04-05 05:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
However, don't forget that the ongoing subplot of the Tom Swift
series was his courtship of and eventual marriage to Mary Nestor.
Oh sure. That would be after he grew up. (Did he ever? I never
read h im.)
Well, Tom Swift was always a young *man*, not a boy and lived an
adult life. Tom Swift Jr. was a boy, basically, and had no interest in girls.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Greg Goss
2017-04-05 05:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
However, don't forget that the ongoing subplot of the Tom Swift
series was his courtship of and eventual marriage to Mary Nestor.
Oh sure. That would be after he grew up. (Did he ever? I never
read h im.)
Well, the original Tom Swift grew up and had Tom Swift Jr, which was
the Tom Swift for my generation. I used to have the book where the
original Tom Swift invented TV. I owned another where he invented a
practical dirigible, but I remember so little of that one that I
wonder if I ever read it other than admiring it on the shelf.

I don't know what happened to either of those since I last saw them
either in the seventies or early eighties.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Scott Lurndal
2017-04-05 12:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
However, don't forget that the ongoing subplot of the Tom Swift
series was his courtship of and eventual marriage to Mary Nestor.
Jr.? or Sr.? I don't recall that from the Jr. books.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-04-05 13:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
However, don't forget that the ongoing subplot of the Tom Swift
series was his courtship of and eventual marriage to Mary Nestor.
Jr.? or Sr.? I don't recall that from the Jr. books.
Sr. Mary Nestor Swift was Tom Jr's mom.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 18:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell.
(I've been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could
possibly be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that
for some years in his career, his stories literally had no
women *in* them. They literally happened in male-only
universes. When he finally did have female characters they
were Pulp Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and
attach themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued
by A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him
at the end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A
can get by just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the
greatest source of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as
consistently, but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments,
too, though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter
suitable for boys, not grown men).
I am well aware. But with Leinster, it's a more rigid formula than
most, though honestly, not much more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-04-04 18:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
You may be overstating the case. Do you think the 'Oz' books were
gendered? That series started around 1900. I don't think you can
make that claim about Narnia either, for all the acknowledged
lacunae in CSL's life experience.

pt
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-04 20:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
You may be overstating the case. Do you think the 'Oz' books were
gendered? That series started around 1900. I don't think you can
make that claim about Narnia either, for all the acknowledged
lacunae in CSL's life experience.
I think the catastrophe in Oz when women en masse
set out to do something other than look after their
home and children is in Oz book two.
David Johnston
2017-04-04 21:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
You may be overstating the case. Do you think the 'Oz' books were
gendered? That series started around 1900. I don't think you can
make that claim about Narnia either, for all the acknowledged
lacunae in CSL's life experience.
I think the catastrophe in Oz when women en masse
set out to do something other than look after their
home and children is in Oz book two.
Yes, it was mockery of the suffragettes.
Peter Trei
2017-04-04 21:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-04-03, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Many period classics, written by writers who were especially
enlightened for their day, are now misogynistic as hell. (I've
been read Murray Leinster, of late. None of it could possibly
be published today.)
Would this be an interesting thread? I bought the Baen
collections of Christopher Anvil stories, and I noticed that for
some years in his career, his stories literally had no women
*in* them. They literally happened in male-only universes.
When he finally did have female characters they were Pulp
Princesses, whose purpose was entirely to find and attach
themselves to a proper male, often the hero.
A) The young hero (who is male)
B) The young female sidekick, who is 1) plucky, 2) moderately
competent, but ultimately cannot survive without being rescued by
A, and 3) exists solely to fall in love with A and marry him at the
end (in other words, B cannot survive without A, but A can get by
just fine without B, and often, resucing B is the greatest source
of danger for A)
C) The older, always male, mentor type (not quite as consistently,
but very common).
I compare to James Schmitz and am at least intrigued.
And then there's Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was, perhaps, not all
that enlighteneed for his day. L. Frank Baum had his moments, too,
though to a far lesser degree.
Remember that back in the day, nonserious literature was sorted
by gender. Boys were expected to read adventure stories (and
SF was considered adventure stories, and for that matter suitable
for boys, not grown men).
And boys' stories, almost by definition, didn't have girls in
them, because boys were supposed to be uninterested in, nay
rather, repelled by girls until they grew up.
Girls, on the other hand, were expected to read stories about
household tasks and, eventually, courtship and marriage. There
were exceptions, e.g. the Nancy Drew stories, and some adventurous
books (written in the thirties, which I found used in the fifties)
about an aviatrix named Dorothy Dixon, and, which may surprise you,
Louisa May Alcott. Okay, she knew she had to sell, which meant
almost all her books end with a marriage; but in most stories
she's got at least one female character who never marries and
does useful work in the community. I would have to reread more
Alcotts than I have on the shelf to see if she has any female
characters who not only remain single, but work for a living.
But it wouldn't surprise me.
You may be overstating the case. Do you think the 'Oz' books were
gendered? That series started around 1900. I don't think you can
make that claim about Narnia either, for all the acknowledged
lacunae in CSL's life experience.
I think the catastrophe in Oz when women en masse
set out to do something other than look after their
home and children is in Oz book two.
Yes, it was mockery of the suffragettes.
An affectionate one though, unlike his thoughts on the Indians.
'Catastrophe' is a too strong a word.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinjur

"The revolt is a parody of the contemporaneous movement for women's suffrage,
which Baum supported. (His mother-in-law was prominent suffragist Matilda Joslyn
Gage.) General Jinjur's followers use both violence (sharp knitting needles) and
their feminine privileges to gain advantage: no man will hit a pretty girl, and
Jinjur boasts "there is not an ugly face in my entire Army." Yet those same
young women are temporarily routed by an incursion of mice. Jinjur's regime
assigns Emerald City husbands to domestic tasks thought to be women's work, such
as cooking and cleaning; the men quickly get worn out, and eventually their
wives are happy to take over those tasks and do them competently again."

pt
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-04 22:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
An affectionate one though, unlike his thoughts on the Indians.
'Catastrophe' is a too strong a word.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinjur
"The revolt is a parody of the contemporaneous movement for women's suffrage,
which Baum supported. (His mother-in-law was prominent suffragist Matilda Joslyn
Gage.) General Jinjur's followers use both violence (sharp knitting needles) and
their feminine privileges to gain advantage: no man will hit a pretty girl, and
Jinjur boasts "there is not an ugly face in my entire Army." Yet those same
young women are temporarily routed by an incursion of mice. Jinjur's regime
assigns Emerald City husbands to domestic tasks thought to be women's work, such
as cooking and cleaning; the men quickly get worn out, and eventually their
wives are happy to take over those tasks and do them competently again."
pt
And before things return to their former state, this dialogue exchange happens (keep in mind that this was before dishwashers and washing machines, etc, became common):

“Why, we’ve had a revolution, your Majesty, as you ought to know very well,” replied the man; “and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I’m glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City.”

“Hm!” said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. “If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?”

“I really do not know” replied the man, with a deep sigh. “Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.”


I knew Baum admired females to a certain degree (reportedly, there are a lot of females in the Oz books because he never had a daughter and really wanted one, after four sons), but can you tell me of some biography of his that talks more about his support of suffrage? *I* had thought that his real-life attitude - in the beginning, anyway - was more like "why are all these women whining about not having the vote; they NEVER had the vote, so why don't they just get used to that fact?"

And can you tell me where and when he made THAT suggestion for Native Americans?


Lenona.
Cryptoengineer
2017-04-05 01:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
An affectionate one though, unlike his thoughts on the Indians.
'Catastrophe' is a too strong a word.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinjur
"The revolt is a parody of the contemporaneous movement for women's
suffr
age,
Post by Peter Trei
which Baum supported. (His mother-in-law was prominent suffragist
Matilda
Joslyn
Post by Peter Trei
Gage.) General Jinjur's followers use both violence (sharp knitting
needl
es) and
Post by Peter Trei
their feminine privileges to gain advantage: no man will hit a pretty
gir
l, and
Post by Peter Trei
Jinjur boasts "there is not an ugly face in my entire Army." Yet
those sa
me
Post by Peter Trei
young women are temporarily routed by an incursion of mice. Jinjur's
regi
me
Post by Peter Trei
assigns Emerald City husbands to domestic tasks thought to be women's
wor
k, such
Post by Peter Trei
as cooking and cleaning; the men quickly get worn out, and eventually
the
ir
Post by Peter Trei
wives are happy to take over those tasks and do them competently again."
pt
And before things return to their former state, this dialogue exchange
happens (keep in mind that this was before dishwashers and washing
“Why, we’ve had a revolution, your Majesty, as you ought to know
very well,” replied the man; “and since you went away the women
have been running things to suit themselves. I’m glad you have
decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and
minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the
Emerald City.”
“Hm!” said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. “If it is such hard work
as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?”
“I really do not know” replied the man, with a deep sigh.
“Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.”
I knew Baum admired females to a certain degree (reportedly, there are
a lot of females in the Oz books because he never had a daughter and
really wanted one, after four sons), but can you tell me of some
biography of his that talks more about his support of suffrage? *I*
had thought that his real-life attitude - in the beginning, anyway -
was more like "why are all these women whining about not having the
vote; they NEVER had the vote, so why don't they just get used to that
fact?"
You thought wrong.

Baum's day job 1888-1891, before his writing took off, was as a
newspaper editor at the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer in Dakota Territory.
As such he had a bully pulpit. He was married to Maud Gage, the daughter
of Matilda Joslyn Gage, a major figure in the suffrage movement.
Matilda spent half of each year living with the Baums.

From Wikipedia:
"Sally Roesch Wagner of The Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation has published
a pamphlet titled The Wonderful Mother of Oz describing how Matilda
Gage's radical feminist politics were sympathetically channeled by Baum
into his Oz books. Much of the politics in the Republican Aberdeen
Saturday Pioneer dealt with trying to convince the populace to vote for
women's suffrage. Baum was the secretary of Aberdeen's Woman's Suffrage
Club. Susan B. Anthony visited Aberdeen and stayed with the Baums."
Post by Peter Trei
And can you tell me where and when he made THAT suggestion for Native Americans?
There's lots of sources if you look, but this comes from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/the-editor-who-called-for_b_
316734.html

"In an editorial written six days after 300 Lakota men, women and
children were massacred at Wounded Knee, Baum wrote, "Having wronged them
for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow
it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures
from the face of the earth."

Baum followed that editorial with another. He wrote, "The whites, by law
of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American
continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be
secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not
annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit is broken, their manhood
effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they
are."

[Some claim that this was written ironically, and not intended to be
taken literally. However, he's far from the only person expressing
such sentiments around that time.]

pt
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-05 17:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
lenona wrote in
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I knew Baum admired females to a certain degree (reportedly, there are
a lot of females in the Oz books because he never had a daughter and
really wanted one, after four sons), but can you tell me of some
biography of his that talks more about his support of suffrage? *I*
had thought that his real-life attitude - in the beginning, anyway -
was more like "why are all these women whining about not having the
vote; they NEVER had the vote, so why don't they just get used to that
fact?"
You thought wrong.
Baum's day job 1888-1891, before his writing took off, was as a
newspaper editor at the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer in Dakota Territory.
As such he had a bully pulpit. He was married to Maud Gage, the daughter
of Matilda Joslyn Gage, a major figure in the suffrage movement.
Matilda spent half of each year living with the Baums.
"Sally Roesch Wagner of The Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation has published
a pamphlet titled The Wonderful Mother of Oz describing how Matilda
Gage's radical feminist politics were sympathetically channeled by Baum
into his Oz books. Much of the politics in the Republican Aberdeen
Saturday Pioneer dealt with trying to convince the populace to vote for
women's suffrage. Baum was the secretary of Aberdeen's Woman's Suffrage
Club. Susan B. Anthony visited Aberdeen and stayed with the Baums."
Interestingly, Gage's Wikipedia entry describes her as fighting for Native American rights.

Also:

http://www.matildajoslyngage.org/gage-home/baumoz-family-room/

First paragraph:

“Mrs. Baum’s mother was a writer and for several years persistently urged Baum to write his oral yarns on paper,” the Syracuse Herald reported in an interview with Maud Gage Baum shortly before the 1939 release of MGM’s Wizard of Oz. Maud repeated the story on Ripley’s Believe it or Not radio show the same year. “Baum might never have become a children’s book writer if not for Matilda Joslyn Gage,” according to preeminent Baum scholar Michael Patrick Hearn. “Her influence is stamped all over the Oz Books. Without her, there might never have been The Wizard of Oz.”



Anyway, I knew Baum supported suffrage EVENTUALLY. It would seem, however, that the John Ritter TV movie was seriously dishonest in portraying Gage as the inspiration for the character, per se, of the Wicked Witch of the West.

http://www.whoinspired.com/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz

Excerpt:

"The witches in the novel were influenced by witch-hunting research gathered by L. Frank Baum's mother-in-law, Matilda Joslyn Gage. The stories of barbarous acts against accused witches scared Baum. Two key events in the novel involve wicked witches who both meet their death through metaphorical means."

(As Michael Patrick Hearn pointed out, when the witch wails "didn't you know water would be the end of me," it's a reference to the water test for accused witches.)

Btw, does anyone know what Baum's widow thought of the MGM movie?


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-04 14:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when women fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree with, I suppose.

(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign female soldiers to do so.)


Lenona.
Peter Trei
2017-04-04 14:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when women fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree with, I suppose.
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign female soldiers to do so.)
That (the rape aspect) never occurred to me when I read the stories originally;
I was about 10 years old. I think I just assumed that it was a violation of
what we'd now call gender norms, and as such unappealling. These are kids (at
best YA) books, and I don't think CSL was trying to put visions of rape into
the minds of middle class English childre in the 1950s.

Are there any other places in the books with allusions to sex? Even the four
Kings and Queens ruled without consorts.

pt
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-04 15:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when
women fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree
with, I suppose.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did
hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as
though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign
female soldiers to do so.)
That (the rape aspect) never occurred to me when I read the stories originally;
I was about 10 years old. I think I just assumed that it was a violation of
what we'd now call gender norms, and as such unappealling. These are kids (at
best YA) books, and I don't think CSL was trying to put visions of rape into
the minds of middle class English childre in the 1950s.
Are there any other places in the books with allusions to sex? Even the four
Kings and Queens ruled without consorts.
The only one I can think of is in _The Horse and his Boy_, in
which at the end it's mentioned that Cor and Aravis, being so
used to quarreling with each other and making it up, married when
they grew up, "so as to go on doing it more conveniently." And
their horses Bree and Hwin "both got married, but not to each
other."

And in _The Magician's Nephew_ the coachman (I'm blanking on his
name) tells Aslan, "I'm a married man," and Aslan obligingly
summons his wife to Narnia and they become the Adam and Eve of
humans in Narnia.

But nonconsensual, or even extramarital sex? Not in books
intended for children.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-04 21:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when
women fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree
with, I suppose.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did
hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as
though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign
female soldiers to do so.)
That (the rape aspect) never occurred to me when I read the stories originally;
I was about 10 years old. I think I just assumed that it was a violation of
what we'd now call gender norms, and as such unappealling. These are kids (at
best YA) books, and I don't think CSL was trying to put visions of rape into
the minds of middle class English childre in the 1950s.
Are there any other places in the books with allusions to sex? Even the four
Kings and Queens ruled without consorts.
The only one I can think of is in _The Horse and his Boy_, in
which at the end it's mentioned that Cor and Aravis, being so
used to quarreling with each other and making it up, married when
they grew up, "so as to go on doing it more conveniently." And
their horses Bree and Hwin "both got married, but not to each
other."
And in _The Magician's Nephew_ the coachman (I'm blanking on his
name) tells Aslan, "I'm a married man," and Aslan obligingly
summons his wife to Narnia and they become the Adam and Eve of
humans in Narnia.
But nonconsensual, or even extramarital sex? Not in books
intended for children.
I think Queen Susan's peril in _The Horse and
his Boy_ is of marriage against her will, with
all that is implied but not mentioned.

I think there's also maybe a bit in there where
one lady is substituted for another when -
I suppose - the rapist is expected to pay a call,
or perhaps I'm thinking of the 1980 _Flash Gordon_
where Dale Arden skips out of the harem.
Moriarty
2017-04-04 22:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when
women fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree
with, I suppose.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did
hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as
though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign
female soldiers to do so.)
That (the rape aspect) never occurred to me when I read the stories originally;
I was about 10 years old. I think I just assumed that it was a violation of
what we'd now call gender norms, and as such unappealling. These are kids (at
best YA) books, and I don't think CSL was trying to put visions of rape into
the minds of middle class English childre in the 1950s.
Are there any other places in the books with allusions to sex? Even the four
Kings and Queens ruled without consorts.
The only one I can think of is in _The Horse and his Boy_, in
which at the end it's mentioned that Cor and Aravis, being so
used to quarreling with each other and making it up, married when
they grew up, "so as to go on doing it more conveniently." And
their horses Bree and Hwin "both got married, but not to each
other."
And in _The Magician's Nephew_ the coachman (I'm blanking on his
name) tells Aslan, "I'm a married man," and Aslan obligingly
summons his wife to Narnia and they become the Adam and Eve of
humans in Narnia.
But nonconsensual, or even extramarital sex? Not in books
intended for children.
I think Queen Susan's peril in _The Horse and
his Boy_ is of marriage against her will, with
all that is implied but not mentioned.
In that same book, Aravis runs away to escape from a repugnant, arranged marriage - and all that entails - to an old, rich, powerful man. When we meet him, her repugnance is validated.

-Moriarty
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-04 22:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when women fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree with, I suppose.
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign female soldiers to do so.)
That (the rape aspect) never occurred to me when I read the stories originally;
I was about 10 years old. I think I just assumed that it was a violation of
what we'd now call gender norms, and as such unappealling. These are kids (at
best YA) books, and I don't think CSL was trying to put visions of rape into
the minds of middle class English childre in the 1950s.
Well, of course he wasn't about to be clear on THAT awful subject in a book for kids under ten or so. Doesn't mean he couldn't drop a hint for older readers that he knew would go over little kids' heads.

After all, in THaHB, while even King Edmund refers to Rabadash as a "lover" of Queen Susan - and Lasaraleen and Ahoshta also use the word "love" in reference to him and Susan - it becomes very clear by Chapter 8 that Rabadash doesn't "love" Susan in any positive sense of the word - she is simply chattel who, in his mind, has no right to refuse his demands (hence, his use of the adjective "false" as in "treacherous or unfaithful"). Not to mention that, in that book, it's ALSO made pretty clear, for any semi-naive child reader who's old enough to listen to the story, that a forced marriage means unwanted sex, when Rabadash refers to his future offspring.

The same absence of love also applies to Ahoshta and Aravis, of course - he cares nothing for Aravis' consent and only seems to want her for her youth and her father's status (both the father and Ahoshta are very rich, but, unlike the father, Ahoshta is "of base birth" and thus has no right to stand upright before the Tisroc).

But in all likelihood, a naive child who's reading or listening to TLtWatW would simply interpret FC's words as meaning something like "men are SUPPOSED to die and get maimed in battle, women are not, so if they do, THAT'S ugly."

Or, to go on a slight tangent, in 1990, I think, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Perhaps when 18-year-old girls start coming home in wheelchairs and body bags, we`ll begin to wonder why we think it`s acceptable for 18-year-old boys to come home that way."


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-04 22:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Not to mention that, in that book, it's ALSO made pretty clear, for any semi-naive child reader who's old enough to listen to the story, that a forced marriage means unwanted sex, when Rabadash refers to his future offspring.
Just to clarify, even a child who can read TLtWatW alone is not necessarily yet old enough to LISTEN all the way through THaHB, given Chapter 8 and its sophisticated Calormene dialogue - or, for that matter, the dialogue between the Pevensies in Chapter 5. So if the child is over 10, he/she cannot be as naive about what a forced marriage implies as a younger child.


Lenona.
Cryptoengineer
2017-04-05 01:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Not to mention that, in that book, it's ALSO made pretty clear, for
any
semi-naive child reader who's old enough to listen to the story, that
a forced marriage means unwanted sex, when Rabadash refers to his
future offspring.
Just to clarify, even a child who can read TLtWatW alone is not
necessarily yet old enough to LISTEN all the way through THaHB, given
Chapter 8 and its sophisticated Calormene dialogue - or, for that
matter, the dialogue between the Pevensies in Chapter 5. So if the
child is over 10, he/she cannot be as naive about what a forced
marriage implies as a younger child.
I can't recall my reaction to those parts of THaHB at the time I first
read it, but I was pretty naive at the time. I do recall finding it a
little odd, since it contributed almost nothing to the main arc of the
series, and felt like filler.

pt
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-05 04:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Not to mention that, in that book, it's ALSO made pretty clear, for any semi-naive child reader who's old enough to listen to the story, that a forced marriage means unwanted sex, when Rabadash refers to his future offspring.
Just to clarify, even a child who can read
TLtWatW alone is not necessarily yet old
enough to LISTEN all the way through THaHB,
given Chapter 8 and its sophisticated
Calormene dialogue - or, for that matter,
the dialogue between the Pevensies in
Chapter 5. So if the child is over 10,
he/she cannot be as naive about what a
forced marriage implies as a younger child.
I think children are made aware early that
"marriage not by choice" can go badly when
it's e.g. Cinderella whose father by marriage
creates a family that /she/ doesn't want.
And also there's _Beauty and the Beast_
before Disney got at it.

And probably that someone can seem a nice
person to marry, and then turn out not to be.
And it's a modern concept - but it /is/ a
modern concept - that sincerely nice people
can be unsuited as each other's company
and had better be apart. In a fairy-story
or something Victorian, when you marry you
are stuck with it.

An understanding of sex probably comes
later to readers - unless they're very, very
unlucky. Really understanding it - later
still. Marie Stopes explains the mechanics
(if you're hetero) but you have to wait
for Simone de Beauvoir for the politics...

Somewhere in there with fairy stories there
is "Bluebeard", whose Wikipedia page mentions
the father in _The Shining_ reading it to his
three-year-old, as inappropriate. The page
doesn't seem to mention _Beauty and the Beast_.
Perhaps the other way around?
Peter Trei
2017-04-05 13:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Not to mention that, in that book, it's ALSO made pretty clear, for any semi-naive child reader who's old enough to listen to the story, that a forced marriage means unwanted sex, when Rabadash refers to his future offspring.
Just to clarify, even a child who can read
TLtWatW alone is not necessarily yet old
enough to LISTEN all the way through THaHB,
given Chapter 8 and its sophisticated
Calormene dialogue - or, for that matter,
the dialogue between the Pevensies in
Chapter 5. So if the child is over 10,
he/she cannot be as naive about what a
forced marriage implies as a younger child.
In my experience, children can be very aware that
people who marry can become Mommies and Daddies, when
babies turn up.

But there are/were a lot of somewhat sheltered kids
(and I was one) who aren't/weren't really aware of the
Tab A/Slot B mechanics of how that happens, much less
that pregnancy can happen without marriage, or that
the act can be forced. At some point as they start to
approach adolescence, they get 'the talk', or find
sex-ed books mysteriously appearing in their
room. Until then some level of 'innocence' actually exists.

These days, any kid with an internet connection is going
to encounter explicit porn about as soon as they can work
a mouse, unless the adults around him or her take extraordinary
measures.

So I'm pretty sure that even mentions of forced marriage in
THaHB didn't raise images of rape in a lot of kids. I was
one of them. I had no idea of what 'rape' actually meant
until I was around 11.

pt
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-05 14:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Not to mention that, in that book, it's ALSO made pretty clear,
for any semi-naive child reader who's old enough to listen to the story,
that a forced marriage means unwanted sex, when Rabadash refers to his
future offspring.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Just to clarify, even a child who can read
TLtWatW alone is not necessarily yet old
enough to LISTEN all the way through THaHB,
given Chapter 8 and its sophisticated
Calormene dialogue - or, for that matter,
the dialogue between the Pevensies in
Chapter 5. So if the child is over 10,
he/she cannot be as naive about what a
forced marriage implies as a younger child.
In my experience, children can be very aware that
people who marry can become Mommies and Daddies, when
babies turn up.
But there are/were a lot of somewhat sheltered kids
(and I was one) who aren't/weren't really aware of the
Tab A/Slot B mechanics of how that happens, much less
Oh, I was vaguely aware of the Tab A/Slot B aspect from my early
childhood; my father had been a pre-med student (couldn't go on
to get his MD, because of the Depression*) and his old medical
texts were some of my favoriate childhood reading.

But I did assume that sexual intercourse was something people did
*only* when they wanted a baby, and that it was done in a
doctor's office under medical supervision.

Certainly I had no inkling that anyone would do such an awkward
thing as getting the tab into the slot for *fun.*

This was at age about four. Something approximating the real
skinny did not dawn on me till I was well into my teens.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
that pregnancy can happen without marriage, or that
the act can be forced. At some point as they start to
approach adolescence, they get 'the talk', or find
sex-ed books mysteriously appearing in their
room. Until then some level of 'innocence' actually exists.
These days, any kid with an internet connection is going
to encounter explicit porn about as soon as they can work
a mouse, unless the adults around him or her take extraordinary
measures.
So I'm pretty sure that even mentions of forced marriage in
THaHB didn't raise images of rape in a lot of kids. I was
one of them. I had no idea of what 'rape' actually meant
until I was around 11.
I encountered the word in a stack of "True Confession" magazines
somebody had left around in the office of the motel where we
spent summers at the Russian River. I had no idea what it meant
till much, much later.

_____
*And a damn good thing for me, too, because he had originally
wanted to be a psychiatrist. I've since met several people with
at least one psychiatrist parent, and they were all nut cases.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Juho Julkunen
2017-04-05 02:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Or, to go on a slight tangent, in 1990, I think, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Perhaps when 18-year-old girls start coming home in wheelchairs and body bags, we`ll begin to wonder why we think it`s acceptable for 18-year-old boys to come home that way."
"It is entirely seemly for a young man killed in battle to lie mangled
by the bronze spear. In his death all things appear fair."
-Homer, _The Iliad_
--
Juho Julkunen
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-04 14:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when women
fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree with, I
suppose.
Thank you; a quick leaf-through _Witch_ didn't find it for me.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did
hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as
though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign
female soldiers to do so.)
I don't know whether he would have even *alluded* to rape in a
story intended for children, written under someone whose mindset
formed under Victoria and Edward VII.

Additional information: Lewis's mother died when he was a child.
He went to all-male schools and an all-male college, he fought in
WWI where everybody was male except the nurses, and then he started
teaching in another all-male college. He did know females
existed, and admired them from a distance, and he had some female
students, many of whom (like his character Jane Studdock in _That
Hideous Strength) were "perhaps not very original scholars." It
wasn't till he met Joy Davidman, late in life, that his mental
habits, so to speak, got shaken up.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
l***@dimnakorr.com
2017-04-04 16:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when women fight."
Women _do_ fight dirty, it is true.

I suppose that's not what C. S. Lewis had in mind, though.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-04 17:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when
women fight."
Women _do_ fight dirty, it is true.
I suppose that's not what C. S. Lewis had in mind, though.
Probably not. See my microbiography upthread, he hardly knew any
females (except for a few aunts and cousins, plus a school matron
for whom he developed an adolescent letch) until after the war.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
J. Clarke
2017-04-05 12:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In one of the books he has Aslan say, ~"War is evil when women
fight."~ (As if it weren't always evil. But Lewis was born
under the reign of Victoria.)
Actually, it was Father Christmas who said "Battles are ugly when women fight." Not that FC would say anything that Aslan would disagree with, I suppose.
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign female soldiers to do so.)
In war you fight whatever enemy shows up. If he's twice your size you
figure out how to deal with it or you die.
l***@yahoo.com
2017-04-05 17:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
lenona says
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(He was alluding to rape, I assume, since in the days when women did hand-to-hand combat, such as Boadicea and her followers, it's not as though they'd be dumb enough to take on men twice their size - or assign female soldiers to do so.)
In war you fight whatever enemy shows up. If he's twice your size you
figure out how to deal with it or you die.
True, but given that there have always been wars, sadly, where even children were being forced to fight (often because too many adults had been killed already), their bosses clearly would have to figure out a plan to help them kill at least as often as they got killed. Otherwise, forcing kids to fight would be a waste of time.


Lenona.

p***@hotmail.com
2017-04-02 23:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of course, Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it presumably took the witch only two seconds or so to transform - otherwise, how could he have saved himself? Still, it looks silly.
Even a strongly neurotoxic venom that gets directly into a major
vein would take 10-15 seconds to reach the brain.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-04-03 00:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake reappears (a
venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her to waste time coiling
herself around Prince Rilian when she was presumably trying to kill him!
(Hint, hint.)
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of course,
Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it presumably took the
witch only two seconds or so to transform - otherwise, how could he have
saved himself? Still, it looks silly.
Perhaps she coiled around him intending to immobilize him so he
couldn't run away?

Now, mind, it was foolish of her to think he *would* run away.
But that's what she would think. Consider in the work of another
Inkling, Sauron cannot imagine that anyone, having got hold of
the Ring, would seek to destroy it rather than using it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Titus G
2017-04-03 01:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake reappears
(a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her to waste time
coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was presumably trying
to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
In the illustration, the last coil looped around his upper body ends in
the snake's head which means the whole snake body had to travel around
Rilian to try to pinion his arms which, although "quick as lightning",
would have taken a lot longer than flinging tail loops.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Offhand, I couldn't find any discussion of this elsewhere. Of course,
Lewis had to give Rilian SOME time to react when it presumably took
the witch only two seconds or so to transform
"...it happened so quicklythat there was only just time to see it."


- otherwise, how could
Post by l***@yahoo.com
he have saved himself? Still, it looks silly.
It looks great if you don't study it.
I did not notice this when I read the book (or when it was read to me)
many decades ago. It is not a book for adults.

The text also states that the head of the snake was 5 inches from
Rilian's face but the illustration shows the head tilted back with the
snake's neck held with the hand of a left arm fully stretched directly
to the left. If the distance from the base of Rilian's neck to the elbow
is 5 inches, is the Prince less than 2 feet tall?

I don't even enjoy Heinlein anymore let alone books for a much younger
age because too many questions like yours arise.
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-03 05:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Titus G
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake reappears
(a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her to waste time
coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was presumably trying
to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
In the illustration, the last coil looped around his upper body ends in
the snake's head which means the whole snake body had to travel around
Rilian to try to pinion his arms which, although "quick as lightning",
would have taken a lot longer than flinging tail loops.
It's an illustration, how seriously do you want to take it?
Post by Titus G
The text also states that the head of the snake was 5 inches from
Rilian's face but the illustration shows the head tilted back with the
snake's neck held with the hand of a left arm fully stretched directly
to the left. If the distance from the base of Rilian's neck to the elbow
is 5 inches, is the Prince less than 2 feet tall?
It's an illustration, how seriously do you want to take it?
Titus G
2017-04-03 07:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Titus G
Post by l***@yahoo.com
SPOILER
When you think about the scene where the Green Witch-snake
reappears (a venomous one, remember), it makes NO sense for her
to waste time coiling herself around Prince Rilian when she was
presumably trying to kill him! (Hint, hint.)
In the illustration, the last coil looped around his upper body
ends in the snake's head which means the whole snake body had to
travel around Rilian to try to pinion his arms which, although
"quick as lightning", would have taken a lot longer than flinging
tail loops.
It's an illustration, how seriously do you want to take it?
Post by Titus G
The text also states that the head of the snake was 5 inches from
Rilian's face but the illustration shows the head tilted back with
the snake's neck held with the hand of a left arm fully stretched
directly to the left. If the distance from the base of Rilian's
neck to the elbow is 5 inches, is the Prince less than 2 feet
tall?
It's an illustration, how seriously do you want to take it?
Exactly! I am pleased you agree with the point I was making even though
you appear to have inadvertently edited the context and substance of my
original reply.
Loading...