Further Adventures in Publicity

[coalescent]

Different bit of publicity material, but the same book as last time, with an exciting new way to mis-spell the title, and:

"Good female SF writers are hard to find -- this is sure to be included on many SF awards shortlists"

Comments

[bohemiancoast]

I'm just waiting for that handy GCSE-maths revision tome, Principles of Angles.

[swisstone]

non principalis, sed principia ...

[ext_3059]

Oh ho ho, very good. This is the most erudite joke i've read this week.

-- tom

[truecatachresis]

Hah, now I'm hoping it FILLS a shortlist with all 6 possible spellings...

[swisstone]

Perhaps they're trying to maximize its chances of getting on shortlists by making people think there are three different books ...

[despotliz]

Maybe I'm just contrary and annoying, but there's no better way to ensure that I don't nominate it for anything.

[coalescent]

I like this one because it manages to patronise all science fiction readers, as well as the author.

[grahamsleight]

"Principles of Angels" is an anagram of "Spin no-elf Spacegirl".

[veggiesu]

Perhaps less tongue in cheek than last time, but seriously, I do wonder just why SF seems to be stuck sometime in the late 1970s as far as gender issues are concerned.

[grahamsleight]

I'm probably too deep in the belly of the beast to get perspective on this. (Plus, my grasp of gender relations wasn't that nuanced in the late 70s.) Do you mean that Gollancz here are being late-70s in patting themselves on the back for publishing AN ACTUAL REAL LIVE WOMAN, or that Niall and the rest of us are being late-70s for thinking they're being tokenistic/patronising?

It's worth saying that the climate on such things seems a lot healthier to me in the US sf field.

[veggiesu]

I think Gollancz are being patronising fools; but in general the attitude to gender issues in SF seems to have gotten as far as recognising the most blatant of sexism, and then stumbled in trying to find any kind of maturity or sophistication in dealing with the subject. Hence my rough approximation of late 1970s (I wasn't thinking of any specific year or incident in that comparison, more the general maturity level).

There seems to be a degree of "hard" feminism (which most of the developed world has moved on from) on one side, and patronising tokenism (not to mention outright unreconstructed sexism) on the other - another position that the world at large seems to have moved on from. Whilst society in general has developed a greater level of maturity and sophistication in dealing with gender issues (along with many other forms of discrimination), SF still seems to be stuck at the "you can't say that, it's sexist!" stage. And I wonder why.

Last time, ktempest said to me "we live in a world where the shoulda coulda wouldas sadly do not

[kate_nepveu]

And I baffled as to why someone's gender is still *such* an issue, when most of the rest of our society has moved on from caring overly much about someone's gender

I see from your userinfo that we don't live in the same country, but even taking society to mean English-speaking Western Europe and North America . . . my experience of society is a lot different from yours. Which is my answer to your question.

Yes, I read your last paragraph.