{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5987", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5987, "subject": "'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "messages": 23, "voices": 11, "first": "2011-03-08T22:39:33+00:00", "last": "2011-03-19T23:51:48+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-08T22:39:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog\npost on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in\nWolfe:\n\nhttp://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n\nDOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D76CC31.1040908@sky.com>", "from": { "name": "Jane Delawney", "address": "jane_delawney at sky.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T00:39:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) what?? (was: Re: 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene\n Wolfe's stories)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be \ntop-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get \nconfusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time.\n\nHard to believe that there are still peeps out there who will admit in \npublic that they have mistaken the writer's depiction of his/her \ncharacters/world for that writer's own personal view on whatever subject.\n\nIt's fiction. GW has created worlds with certain societal norms; given \nthe world we see in BOTNS it's not at all surprising to me that women \nget something of a raw deal in that world. It's kind of a might is \nright, chivalry duhhhh? what's that? universe. Despite this GW gives us \nstrong, independent female characters who are obviously up against it in \ntheir world but who survive and pursue their goals none the less: Agia \nof course; and Dorcas, a real tough cookie who despite looking like a \nteenage girl and despite her internal disarray none the less makes her \nway back from Thrax to Nessus unmolested in time (we are led to assume) \nto be reunited with her son. Actually a happy ending, if an obliquely \nsignalled one.\n\n(I'd love to have more information about what happened to Cyriaca, who \nattempted to do much the same thing, but we'll never know).\n\nOh I could go on, but I do think that the idea that GW is a dyed in the \nwool mysogynist is very, very silly.\n\njd" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 08/03/11 22:39, Daniel Petersen wrote:\nOn a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog\npost on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in\nWolfe:\n\nhttp://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n\nDOJP\n\n \n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D76E845.80100@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-03-09T02:39:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) what??", "in_reply_to": "<4D76CC31.1040908@sky.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've seen published academic articles \"proving\" Milton was a royalist.\n\nAnd of course there are those who believe Wolfe is a right-winger, when \nhe is plainly just an American Catholic of his times. Such people used \nto be considered \"liberal,\" at least in the old sense of the word---no \ndifferent from anyone else.\n\nIt was Catholics who threw fake blood on ICBM silos in the 1970s. Now \nthey picket clinics. But Wolfe is no extremist, just a farm boy and an \nex-Marine.\n\nAbout the only charge he could be found guilty of that I can see is his \nscarcity of female protagonists/narrators. But it's not that weird in \nWolfe's generation---he's a bit older than my own father, fer \nchrissakes, who was in Korea a few years after hostilities there ended. \nAnd he's an SF fanboy. Until a few decades ago, female writers typically \nused male pseudonyms when wrote male narrators. Male writers rarely \nwrote female narrators directly.\n\nWhen Cordwainer Smith (under a different but male name) wrote a novel \nwith a female narrator in the 1940s, this was considered \"experimental.\" \nEven now, not many writers, male or female, successfully cross the \ngender divide. Margaret Atwood is one who does it with almost chilling \nprecision." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/8/2011 7:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:\nSorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be \ntop-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get \nconfusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time.\n\nHard to believe that there are still peeps out there who will admit in \npublic that they have mistaken the writer's depiction of his/her \ncharacters/world for that writer's own personal view on whatever subject.\n\nIt's fiction. GW has created worlds with certain societal norms; given \nthe world we see in BOTNS it's not at all surprising to me that women \nget something of a raw deal in that world. It's kind of a might is \nright, chivalry duhhhh? what's that? universe. Despite this GW gives \nus strong, independent female characters who are obviously up against \nit in their world but who survive and pursue their goals none the \nless: Agia of course; and Dorcas, a real tough cookie who despite \nlooking like a teenage girl and despite her internal disarray none the \nless makes her way back from Thrax to Nessus unmolested in time (we \nare led to assume) to be reunited with her son. Actually a happy \nending, if an obliquely signalled one.\n\n(I'd love to have more information about what happened to Cyriaca, who \nattempted to do much the same thing, but we'll never know).\n\nOh I could go on, but I do think that the idea that GW is a dyed in \nthe wool mysogynist is very, very silly.\n\njd\n\nOn 08/03/11 22:39, Daniel Petersen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog\npost on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in\nWolfe:\n\nhttp://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n\nDOJP\n\n \n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2011-03-09T02:57:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nOn a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde\nblog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of\nmisogyny in Wolfe:\n\n\nhttp://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A couple of flaws stand out from the others.\n\nFirst, the author of the essay writes: \"Wolfe generally avoids using his\nprotagonists or narrators to proclaim his own beliefs\". If this is true it\nis incumbent on the essayist to find other means of defending Wolfe from\nthese charges of misogyny. He does not, but picks a single character (Silk)\nin a single scene to make his point. The essayist provides inadequate\nreasons to accept his initial point (after all, there are plenty of good\nnovelists that use their protagonist to proclaim the author's beliefs) and\nno reasons to accept his example as an exception in Wolfe.\n\nTo further muddy the water, in regards to the story under question (King\nRat), the essayist provides an excellent example of where the actions in the\nstory are both misogynist and rewarding. The moral of the story would seem\nto be \"misogyny pays\", regardless of any (nonexistent in this case)\nprotestations to the contrary by the protagonist (whom, after all, we cannot\ntrust to reflect the author's intentions).\n\nAnd second, the essayist writes: \"We are *meant* to be horrified by the\nsordid nature of this man...\". No contextual evidence is provided to\nsupport this reading. This despite an earlier section titled \"DEPICTING THE\nABUSE OF WOMEN: TEXT AND CONTEXT\".\n\nDOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D76EED3.1060007@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-03-09T03:06:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A little bit of analysis is all that is needed on your second point.\n\nAccepting that the moral of King Rat is that \"misogyny pays\" ... OK, so \nwhat? (So does dramatically entertaining torture and execution, for an \nexpert at the trade, in a certain other fictional world resembling \nmedieval Europe.)\n\nWell, look that the world King Rat lives in, in which \"misogyny pays.\" \nDo you like it?\n\nPoint made. Wolfe does not support misogyny." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/8/2011 9:57 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nOn Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Petersen \n> wrote:\n\n On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for\n Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this\n issue of misogyny in Wolfe:\n\n http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n\nA couple of flaws stand out from the others.\n\nFirst, the author of the essay writes: \"Wolfe generally avoids using \nhis protagonists or narrators to proclaim his own beliefs\". If this \nis true it is incumbent on the essayist to find other means of \ndefending Wolfe from these charges of misogyny. He does not, but \npicks a single character (Silk) in a single scene to make his point. \nThe essayist provides inadequate reasons to accept his initial point \n(after all, there are plenty of good novelists that use their \nprotagonist to proclaim the author's beliefs) and no reasons to accept \nhis example as an exception in Wolfe.\n\nTo further muddy the water, in regards to the story under question \n(King Rat), the essayist provides an excellent example of where the \nactions in the story are both misogynist and rewarding. The moral of \nthe story would seem to be \"misogyny pays\", regardless of any \n(nonexistent in this case) protestations to the contrary by the \nprotagonist (whom, after all, we cannot trust to reflect the author's \nintentions).\n\nAnd second, the essayist writes: \"We are /meant/ to be horrified by \nthe sordid nature of this man...\". No contextual evidence is provided \nto support this reading. This despite an earlier section titled \n\"DEPICTING THE ABUSE OF WOMEN: TEXT AND CONTEXT\".\n\n DOJP\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D771C2A.6030001@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T06:20:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) what??", "in_reply_to": "<4D76CC31.1040908@sky.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/8/2011 6:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:\nSorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be\ntop-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get\nconfusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Skipping bathroom trips and not bothering to dress might help you get \nback on schedule." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D771EA4.5010406@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T06:31:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) what??", "in_reply_to": "<4D76E845.80100@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/8/2011 8:39 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nIt was Catholics who threw fake blood on ICBM silos in the 1970s. Now\nthey picket clinics. But Wolfe is no extremist, just a farm boy and an\nex-Marine." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not disagreeing with your message, just wanted to point out that he \nserved in the Army's Seventh Infantry Division rather than the Marines." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T08:14:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "<4D76EED3.1060007@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Clarification: that urth post heavily criticising the Silk for Calde blog\npost on the abuse of women was *NOT* from me - that is, not from 'DOJP'\n(Daniel Otto Jack Petersen) - though somehow in the cutting and pasting my\ninitials ended up directly at the bottom of his ('Thomas Bitterman')\ncomments.\n\nInteresting observations though, Thomas. But not exactly a generous reading\nof Silk for Calde's case. I think Stockhoff's comment effectively answers\nyour second point about 'King Rat'.\n\nDOJP (really this time)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:06 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nA little bit of analysis is all that is needed on your second point.\n\nAccepting that the moral of King Rat is that \"misogyny pays\" ... OK, so\nwhat? (So does dramatically entertaining torture and execution, for an\nexpert at the trade, in a certain other fictional world resembling medieval\nEurope.)\n\nWell, look that the world King Rat lives in, in which \"misogyny pays.\" Do\nyou like it?\n\nPoint made. Wolfe does not support misogyny.\n\nOn 3/8/2011 9:57 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com >\nwrote:\n\n On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for\n Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this\n issue of misogyny in Wolfe:\n\n\nhttp://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n\nA couple of flaws stand out from the others.\n\nFirst, the author of the essay writes: \"Wolfe generally avoids using his\nprotagonists or narrators to proclaim his own beliefs\". If this is true it\nis incumbent on the essayist to find other means of defending Wolfe from\nthese charges of misogyny. He does not, but picks a single character (Silk)\nin a single scene to make his point. The essayist provides inadequate\nreasons to accept his initial point (after all, there are plenty of good\nnovelists that use their protagonist to proclaim the author's beliefs) and\nno reasons to accept his example as an exception in Wolfe.\n\nTo further muddy the water, in regards to the story under question (King\nRat), the essayist provides an excellent example of where the actions in the\nstory are both misogynist and rewarding. The moral of the story would seem\nto be \"misogyny pays\", regardless of any (nonexistent in this case)\nprotestations to the contrary by the protagonist (whom, after all, we cannot\ntrust to reflect the author's intentions).\n\nAnd second, the essayist writes: \"We are /meant/ to be horrified by the\nsordid nature of this man...\". No contextual evidence is provided to\nsupport this reading. This despite an earlier section titled \"DEPICTING THE\nABUSE OF WOMEN: TEXT AND CONTEXT\".\n\n DOJP\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T08:33:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) what??", "in_reply_to": "<4D76E845.80100@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/8/2011 7:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:\nDespite this GW gives us strong, independent female characters who are\nobviously up against it in their world but who survive and pursue their\ngoals none the less: Agia of course; and Dorcas, a real tough cookie who\ndespite looking like a teenage girl and despite her internal disarray none\nthe less makes her way back from Thrax to Nessus unmolested in time (we are\nled to assume) to be reunited with her son." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, I'm shocked there's not more commentary on Wolfe's *many*\nsympathetically and admiringly painted strong female characters of a wide\nvariety, rather than worrying over misogyny. (Nettle, Maytera Mint, Maytera\nMarble, Captain Chris's lover in Pirate Freedom [can't remember her name,\nmisogynist that I am!] could all be added to the list)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:39 AM, David Stockhoff \n wrote:\nAnd of course there are those who believe Wolfe is a right-winger, when he\nis plainly just an American Catholic of his times. Such people used to be\nconsidered \"liberal,\" at least in the old sense of the word---no different\nfrom anyone else." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Glad you can see political shades - some people are so binary about it.\n Anyway, if a passionate left-winger like China Mieville can love Wolfe even\nwith what he takes to be Wolfe's 'conservatism', then I think everyone else\nshould be able to remain open minded and appreciate Wolfe as an artist too.\n It's not like Wolfe is some neo-Nazi fascist - yeesh! Surely Catholic\nWolfe writing almost nothing but tales about 'pagans', sympathetically and\nintelligently drawn, gets compassion in a pluralistic world far more than\nhis ungenerous readers accusing him of being a crusty reactionary.\n\nDOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:39 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nI've seen published academic articles \"proving\" Milton was a royalist.\n\nAnd of course there are those who believe Wolfe is a right-winger, when he\nis plainly just an American Catholic of his times. Such people used to be\nconsidered \"liberal,\" at least in the old sense of the word---no different\nfrom anyone else.\n\nIt was Catholics who threw fake blood on ICBM silos in the 1970s. Now they\npicket clinics. But Wolfe is no extremist, just a farm boy and an ex-Marine.\n\nAbout the only charge he could be found guilty of that I can see is his\nscarcity of female protagonists/narrators. But it's not that weird in\nWolfe's generation---he's a bit older than my own father, fer chrissakes,\nwho was in Korea a few years after hostilities there ended. And he's an SF\nfanboy. Until a few decades ago, female writers typically used male\npseudonyms when wrote male narrators. Male writers rarely wrote female\nnarrators directly.\n\nWhen Cordwainer Smith (under a different but male name) wrote a novel with\na female narrator in the 1940s, this was considered \"experimental.\" Even\nnow, not many writers, male or female, successfully cross the gender divide.\nMargaret Atwood is one who does it with almost chilling precision.\n\nOn 3/8/2011 7:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Sorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be top-posting,\nbottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get confusing they all\nhave different rules and I don't have much time.\n\nHard to believe that there are still peeps out there who will admit in\npublic that they have mistaken the writer's depiction of his/her\ncharacters/world for that writer's own personal view on whatever subject.\n\nIt's fiction. GW has created worlds with certain societal norms; given the\nworld we see in BOTNS it's not at all surprising to me that women get\nsomething of a raw deal in that world. It's kind of a might is right,\nchivalry duhhhh? what's that? universe. Despite this GW gives us strong,\nindependent female characters who are obviously up against it in their world\nbut who survive and pursue their goals none the less: Agia of course; and\nDorcas, a real tough cookie who despite looking like a teenage girl and\ndespite her internal disarray none the less makes her way back from Thrax to\nNessus unmolested in time (we are led to assume) to be reunited with her\nson. Actually a happy ending, if an obliquely signalled one.\n\n(I'd love to have more information about what happened to Cyriaca, who\nattempted to do much the same thing, but we'll never know).\n\nOh I could go on, but I do think that the idea that GW is a dyed in the\nwool mysogynist is very, very silly.\n\njd\n\nOn 08/03/11 22:39, Daniel Petersen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde\nblog\npost on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny\nin\nWolfe:\n\n\nhttp://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n<\nhttp://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "DOJP\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D77733E.1030300@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-03-09T12:31:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) what??", "in_reply_to": "<4D771EA4.5010406@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks, I always get that wrong." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/9/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 3/8/2011 8:39 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It was Catholics who threw fake blood on ICBM silos in the 1970s. Now\nthey picket clinics. But Wolfe is no extremist, just a farm boy and an\nex-Marine." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not disagreeing with your message, just wanted to point out that he \nserved in the Army's Seventh Infantry Division rather than the Marines." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-03-09T14:01:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree he gets it about right. Wolfe is unlikely to win any awards for feminist SF, but accusations of misogyny are a bit strong, unless misogyny is defined so widely as to be useless for descriptive purposes..\n\nDefinitions of misogyny vary from the literal \"hatred of women\" to \"holding a distasteful opinion about women as a group\". Clearly anybody holding an opinion about women as a group is at risk of falling into the latter category for someone, even if the opinion might be considered complimentary by many.\n\nI think the accusations of misogyny stem from two, perhaps three sources. First, Wolfe's female characters are typically not so much in the forefront or as strongly delineated as the males. This may reasonably be excused on the grounds that Wolfe is male; for most authors, writing one's own gender seems likely to be an easier task. I would not harshly criticise a woman author for writing stronger female characters!\n\nSecond, Wolfe clearly believes that traditional gender roles reflect certain realities of human nature, and his books tend to reflect that. For many, this belief is so obviously true as to need no debate. For others, to state or imply it is to take a reactionary stance that opposes all that is pure and good according to current progressive thinking. In their view, making such a statement is in itself a thoughtcrime sufficient to warrant the accusation of misogyny, even when the gender roles are just different, without one being intrinsically inferior.\n\nThe third source is exemplified by rantings such as those of 'Lepton', who asserts in effect that any mistreatment of women depicted in a book demonstrates the author's misogyny, even when equal or greater mistreatment of men is depicted just as prominently. My guess is that Lepton is actually motivated at base by the second sourse above, but does not have the wit to express it in coherent form, so he falls back on this. His argument might have some force if Wolfe were wrining porn, or torture porn, but clearly he is not. Wolfe's sex scenes are not lubricious. The most visceral torture scene is that in which Thea's maidservant has her leg flayed, and I find it hard to believe anyone would read it to enjoy the evocation.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n \n From: Daniel Petersen \n\n\n On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe:\n\n\n http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D779181.8030102@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-03-09T14:41:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, yes---our old friend Lepton. I suggest we read him to find out what \nNOT to think.\n\nAs a side note, it is of course exactly that \"different, without one \nbeing intrinsically inferior\" that is contested. But yes, I think the \ncriticism is classic kneejerkism.\n\nWolfe is more interested in moral explorations than social ones, to the \nextent that they can be separated, and he's no Octavia Butler. There Are \nDoors postulates a society that is arguably more female-dominated than \nour own in some ways, and it's clearly a dystopia. But it's hardly worse \nthan our world, and if it is worse, it's only in the same ways, or \nanalogous/reversed ones, that our world is bad. It's a projection based \non misogynist male fears, but not on misogyny per se. It incorporates \nrules that are false here, but very familiar (being Faery-like).\n\nNeither world is fair; both worlds are run by compassionately depicted \nflawed humans who do the best they can under the rules." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/9/2011 9:01 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\nI agree he gets it about right. Wolfe is unlikely to win any awards \nfor feminist SF, but accusations of misogyny are a bit strong, unless \nmisogyny is defined so widely as to be useless for descriptive purposes..\nDefinitions of misogyny vary from the literal \"hatred of women\" to \n\"holding a distasteful opinion about women as a group\". Clearly \nanybody holding an opinion about women as a group is at risk \nof falling into the latter category for someone, even if the opinion \nmight be considered complimentary by many.\nI think the accusations of misogyny stem from two, perhaps \nthree sources. First, Wolfe's female characters are typically not so \nmuch in the forefront or as strongly delineated as the males. This \nmay reasonably be excused on the grounds that Wolfe is male; for most \nauthors, writing one's own gender seems likely to be an easier task. \nI would not harshly criticise a woman author for writing stronger \nfemale characters!\nSecond, Wolfe clearly believes that traditional gender roles reflect \ncertain realities of human nature, and his books tend to reflect \nthat. For many, this belief is so obviously true as to need no \ndebate. For others, to state or imply it is to take a reactionary \nstance that opposes all that is pure and good according to current \nprogressive thinking. In their view, making such a statement is in \nitself a thoughtcrime sufficient to warrant the accusation of \nmisogyny, even when the gender roles are just different, without one \nbeing intrinsically inferior.\nThe third source is exemplified by rantings such as those of 'Lepton', \nwho asserts in effect that any mistreatment of women depicted in a \nbook demonstrates the author's misogyny, even when equal or greater \nmistreatment of men is depicted just as prominently. My guess is that \nLepton is actually motivated at base by the second sourse above, but \ndoes not have the wit to express it in coherent form, so he falls back \non this. His argument might have some force if Wolfe were wrining \nporn, or torture porn, but clearly he is not. Wolfe's sex scenes are \nnot lubricious. The most visceral torture scene is that in \nwhich Thea's maidservant has her leg flayed, and I find it hard to \nbelieve anyone would read it to enjoy the evocation.\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n *From:* Daniel Petersen \n\n On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for\n Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this\n issue of misogyny in Wolfe:\n\n http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6D34B319-53C0-401A-B75C-60FB8575D3A5@liftingfaces.com>", "from": { "name": "Ryan Dunn", "address": "ryan at liftingfaces.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T15:01:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "<4D779181.8030102@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And yet, when interviewed about An Evil Guest, Gene became strongly emotional and choked up when expressing how Cassie stole the book out from under Chase and proclaimed,\"This is MY story!\"\n\nHe said the hardest part about finishing that book was not being able to write her character anymore.\n\nHardly a misogynistic emotion, I would say. More likely Wolfe is simply more prone to story concepts built around men, no? Not to the express exclusion of writing a female protag, but these gender selections do trend toward matching the gender of the author.\n\nAs an aside, whenever a story pops into my head, the hero is usually a troubled young man or boy. I have to force him to be anyone else more often than not.\n\nAny writers on this list have a similar experience with their muse?\n\n...ryan" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:41 AM, David Stockhoff wrote:\nAh, yes---our old friend Lepton. I suggest we read him to find out what NOT to think.\n\nAs a side note, it is of course exactly that \"different, without one being intrinsically inferior\" that is contested. But yes, I think the criticism is classic kneejerkism.\n\nWolfe is more interested in moral explorations than social ones, to the extent that they can be separated, and he's no Octavia Butler. There Are Doors postulates a society that is arguably more female-dominated than our own in some ways, and it's clearly a dystopia. But it's hardly worse than our world, and if it is worse, it's only in the same ways, or analogous/reversed ones, that our world is bad. It's a projection based on misogynist male fears, but not on misogyny per se. It incorporates rules that are false here, but very familiar (being Faery-like).\n\nNeither world is fair; both worlds are run by compassionately depicted flawed humans who do the best they can under the rules.\n\nOn 3/9/2011 9:01 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I agree he gets it about right. Wolfe is unlikely to win any awards for feminist SF, but accusations of misogyny are a bit strong, unless misogyny is defined so widely as to be useless for descriptive purposes..\nDefinitions of misogyny vary from the literal \"hatred of women\" to \"holding a distasteful opinion about women as a group\". Clearly anybody holding an opinion about women as a group is at risk of falling into the latter category for someone, even if the opinion might be considered complimentary by many.\nI think the accusations of misogyny stem from two, perhaps three sources. First, Wolfe's female characters are typically not so much in the forefront or as strongly delineated as the males. This may reasonably be excused on the grounds that Wolfe is male; for most authors, writing one's own gender seems likely to be an easier task. I would not harshly criticise a woman author for writing stronger female characters!\nSecond, Wolfe clearly believes that traditional gender roles reflect certain realities of human nature, and his books tend to reflect that. For many, this belief is so obviously true as to need no debate. For others, to state or imply it is to take a reactionary stance that opposes all that is pure and good according to current progressive thinking. In their view, making such a statement is in itself a thoughtcrime sufficient to warrant the accusation of misogyny, even when the gender roles are just different, without one being intrinsically inferior.\nThe third source is exemplified by rantings such as those of 'Lepton', who asserts in effect that any mistreatment of women depicted in a book demonstrates the author's misogyny, even when equal or greater mistreatment of men is depicted just as prominently. My guess is that Lepton is actually motivated at base by the second sourse above, but does not have the wit to express it in coherent form, so he falls back on this. His argument might have some force if Wolfe were wrining porn, or torture porn, but clearly he is not. Wolfe's sex scenes are not lubricious. The most visceral torture scene is that in which Thea's maidservant has her leg flayed, and I find it hard to believe anyone would read it to enjoy the evocation.\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n *From:* Daniel Petersen \n\n On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for\n Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this\n issue of misogyny in Wolfe:\n\n http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T15:27:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "<6D34B319-53C0-401A-B75C-60FB8575D3A5@liftingfaces.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators.\nBecause I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being\nfemale. I do not think I could write a female narrator from a first-person\nperspective. Third-person limited is probably the only voice I could use\nfor female protagonists.\n\nI think it would be more misogynistic (and presumptuous) of male writers to\nattempt to relate female experiences that they clearly do not have, as if\nsaying, \"Oh, we really get what it's like to be women, too. We're so smart\nand better than everyone else.\"\n\nBut that's me.\n\nLH" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ryan Dunn wrote:\nAnd yet, when interviewed about An Evil Guest, Gene became strongly\nemotional and choked up when expressing how Cassie stole the book out from\nunder Chase and proclaimed,\"This is MY story!\"\n\nHe said the hardest part about finishing that book was not being able to\nwrite her character anymore.\n\nHardly a misogynistic emotion, I would say. More likely Wolfe is simply\nmore prone to story concepts built around men, no? Not to the express\nexclusion of writing a female protag, but these gender selections do trend\ntoward matching the gender of the author.\n\nAs an aside, whenever a story pops into my head, the hero is usually a\ntroubled young man or boy. I have to force him to be anyone else more often\nthan not.\n\nAny writers on this list have a similar experience with their muse?\n\n...ryan\n\nOn Mar 9, 2011, at 9:41 AM, David Stockhoff \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ah, yes---our old friend Lepton. I suggest we read him to find out what\nNOT to think.\n\nAs a side note, it is of course exactly that \"different, without one\nbeing intrinsically inferior\" that is contested. But yes, I think the\ncriticism is classic kneejerkism.\n\nWolfe is more interested in moral explorations than social ones, to the\nextent that they can be separated, and he's no Octavia Butler. There Are\nDoors postulates a society that is arguably more female-dominated than our\nown in some ways, and it's clearly a dystopia. But it's hardly worse than\nour world, and if it is worse, it's only in the same ways, or\nanalogous/reversed ones, that our world is bad. It's a projection based on\nmisogynist male fears, but not on misogyny per se. It incorporates rules\nthat are false here, but very familiar (being Faery-like).\n\nNeither world is fair; both worlds are run by compassionately depicted\nflawed humans who do the best they can under the rules.\n\nOn 3/9/2011 9:01 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I agree he gets it about right. Wolfe is unlikely to win any awards for\nfeminist SF, but accusations of misogyny are a bit strong, unless misogyny\nis defined so widely as to be useless for descriptive purposes..\nDefinitions of misogyny vary from the literal \"hatred of women\" to\n\"holding a distasteful opinion about women as a group\". Clearly anybody\nholding an opinion about women as a group is at risk of falling into the\nlatter category for someone, even if the opinion might be considered\ncomplimentary by many.\nI think the accusations of misogyny stem from two, perhaps three\nsources. First, Wolfe's female characters are typically not so much in the\nforefront or as strongly delineated as the males. This may reasonably be\nexcused on the grounds that Wolfe is male; for most authors, writing one's\nown gender seems likely to be an easier task. I would not harshly criticise\na woman author for writing stronger female characters!\nSecond, Wolfe clearly believes that traditional gender roles reflect\ncertain realities of human nature, and his books tend to reflect that. For\nmany, this belief is so obviously true as to need no debate. For others, to\nstate or imply it is to take a reactionary stance that opposes all that is\npure and good according to current progressive thinking. In their view,\nmaking such a statement is in itself a thoughtcrime sufficient to warrant\nthe accusation of misogyny, even when the gender roles are just different,\nwithout one being intrinsically inferior.\nThe third source is exemplified by rantings such as those of 'Lepton',\nwho asserts in effect that any mistreatment of women depicted in a book\ndemonstrates the author's misogyny, even when equal or greater mistreatment\nof men is depicted just as prominently. My guess is that Lepton is actually\nmotivated at base by the second sourse above, but does not have the wit to\nexpress it in coherent form, so he falls back on this. His argument might\nhave some force if Wolfe were wrining porn, or torture porn, but clearly he\nis not. Wolfe's sex scenes are not lubricious. The most visceral torture\nscene is that in which Thea's maidservant has her leg flayed, and I find it\nhard to believe anyone would read it to enjoy the evocation.\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n *From:* Daniel Petersen \n\n On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for\n Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this\n issue of misogyny in Wolfe:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T16:58:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lane Haygood wrote:\nI tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators.\nBecause I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being\nfemale." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female\ncharacter, how can you write an alien?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<62BF51F2-90DB-428E-8B18-B429DF73119E@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T17:00:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't write aliens or elves or dwarves or any of that. \n\nAlthough it does raise some questions. Is there a universal male or female experience across different species or worlds?\n\nSent from my iPhone" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:58 AM, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" wrote:\nLane Haygood wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators.\nBecause I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being\nfemale." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female\ncharacter, how can you write an alien?\n\n-- \nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T17:06:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "<62BF51F2-90DB-428E-8B18-B429DF73119E@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, you don't write any of that. But are all your characters exactly\nlike you? That's the logical consequence of not writing what you don't\nhave \"direct, subjective experience of.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Lane Haygood wrote:\nI don't write aliens or elves or dwarves or any of that.\n\nAlthough it does raise some questions. Is there a universal male or female experience across different species or worlds?\n\nSent from my iPhone\n\nOn Mar 9, 2011, at 10:58 AM, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Lane Haygood wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators.\nBecause I am male. “I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being\nfemale." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female\ncharacter, how can you write an alien”\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-03-09T17:19:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nLane Haygood wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators.\nBecause I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of \nbeing\nfemale." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female\ncharacter, how can you write an alien?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Aliens are easy compared to those inscrutable women!\n\nBut seriously, I guess the answer is that aliens will probably not be \nreading your books just yet, but women might be. An author's depictions of \nthe opposite gender will be held to a higher standard, because some of that \ngender will be reading it. And indeed, even those of the same gender will \nbe more familiar with the opposite gender than with aliens, robots, talking \ncats or whatever. So you can get away with much less in the way of \ninfelicities.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lane Haygood", "address": "lhaygood at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T17:26:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, my characters are not like me. I can only imagine what I would be like\nas a literary character. A bookish, somewhat awkward lawyer with a penchant\nfor self-deprecation and sarcasm? Heaven save us from such characters.\n\nLH" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOkay, you don't write any of that. But are all your characters exactly\nlike you? That's the logical consequence of not writing what you don't\nhave \"direct, subjective experience of.\"\n\nOn Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Lane Haygood wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't write aliens or elves or dwarves or any of that.\n\nAlthough it does raise some questions. Is there a universal male or\nfemale experience across different species or worlds?\n\nSent from my iPhone\n\nOn Mar 9, 2011, at 10:58 AM, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Lane Haygood wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators.\nBecause I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of\nbeing\nfemale." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female\ncharacter, how can you write an alien?\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<959CEA9A7DBD4E10ADCBB3229209E216@jill>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerryq at indigo.ie" }, "date": "2011-03-09T17:50:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " From: Lane Haygood \n\n\n No, my characters are not like me. I can only imagine what I would be like as a literary character. A bookish, somewhat awkward lawyer with a penchant for self-deprecation and sarcasm? Heaven save us from such characters.\nReplace 'lawyer' with 'academic', 'writer' or 'publisher', and you have described the hero of 50% of comedic literary fiction.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<770013.34955.qm@web37606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-03-09T18:27:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "<959CEA9A7DBD4E10ADCBB3229209E216@jill>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You should probably put \"comedic\" in quotes, too....heh" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D786894.9010606@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2011-03-10T05:58:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) what??", "in_reply_to": "<4D771C2A.6030001@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 3/9/2011 12:20 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 3/8/2011 6:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Sorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be\ntop-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get\nconfusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Skipping bathroom trips and not bothering to dress might help you get\nback on schedule." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm sorry, that was unworthy of me.\n\nI'm resigned to people's disdain of expected behavior but I feel sorely \nprovoked for someone allegedly in a hurry to spend extra time and effort \nto make a point of saying they don't have time to check or the \ninclination to remember, outside of traffic lanes approaching areas of \nincreased hazard, that English is written left to right and top to bottom." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<206294.68794.qm@web161810.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-03-19T23:51:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- On Wed, 3/9/11, Lane Haygood wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Lane Haygood \nSubject: Re: (urth) 'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Wednesday, March 9, 2011, 7:27 AM\n\n\nI tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators. Because I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being female. I do not think I could write a female narrator from a first-person perspective. Third-person limited is probably the only voice I could use for female protagonists.\n\nI?\nBut that's me.\n\nLH\n\n\nOn Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ryan Dunn wrote:\n\nAs an aside, whenever a story pops into my head, the hero is usually a troubled young man or boy. I have to force him to be anyone else more often than not.\n\nAny writers on this list have a similar experience with their muse?\n\n...ryan\n\n\n\n\nA bit late chiming in on this, but my best fiction can be found in my analysis of Gene's work, posted here throughout the years. (just kidding eh?)\n\nI've found if I let my pen get away from me the characters become psychotic/neurotic sociopaths with a penchant for cruelty, something I certainly would deny?being -?I, who cry at Starman, or even the music to it, or when I am reminded of the Bridge of Birds marrying heaven and earth one day out of the year.\n\nBut yeah, I don't think I would ever try a female 1st person. And come, the abuse of women in a story does not a misogynist make. I think Henry Miller is one of the biggest misogynists of our time, but I rarely hear the accusation made. And his fiction wasn't fiction, really. Right up there with accidentally shooting your wife in the head, Burroughs.\n\n\n " } ] } ] }