There were bits of The Gate to Women's Country that I found interesting, but the premise made me angry to the point of irrationality.

Yes. Hence the snarling little argument in LA.

Right now, I'm reading very little; I generally don't when I'm writing steadily. But I am doing two books: I'm rereading Thornyhold (speaking of Mary Stewart), a book that makes me extremely happy. And I'm reading a book Beth's DH lent me, about the blues and folk revival in the sixties UK: Dazzling Stranger: Bert Jansch and the British Folk and Blues Revival, by Colin Harper. It's wonderful and for me, it's like an artesian well of info and memories combined.

Sherri Tepper's Grass is good. I liked The Gate to Women's Country. Even though I don't buy the premise, the book was explicitly about male-female relationships, so I thought her biases worked fine in it artistically. When it got to the point that it appeared that Tepper was capable of writing a book that argued that electricity would be better if women ran power plants and were electricians, I pretty much gave up on her.

I gave up on her around the sleeping beauty rework that explained that anybody who read horror novels was complicit in child abuse, rape, and all the horrors of the culture.

That makes the sense that's not. But I have seen movies that made me feel like that, truly.

Yeesh. Now I'm sorry I mentioned Tepper and revealed my poor taste. I am so much more comfortable when I don't post.

Nope, not your fault KB Sounds like a new hidden camera special "When Good Writers Go Insane" Patricia Cornwell, babe, you're on for next week.

Katerina, why on earth? It isn't poor taste - I'm not sure there's any such thing as poor taste.

I love Charlotte McLeod, light foofy mysteries with cute characters and preposterous plots. She has about as much nutrition as a popcorn container. I adore her and pimp her to people. Poor taste? Who cares?

You started a discussion about what people like and don't like about a particular author. This is a good thing, not a bad one.

Even though I don't buy the premise, the book was explicitly about male-female relationships, so I thought her biases worked fine in it artistically.

See, I took from it that men and women were not capable of relating as peers. I found the idea actively offensive. And while for the Council's purposes homosexuality might have been an aberration in need of correction, the idea didn't help matters along.

Katerina, I hate it when people I love hate the books I love. Things are supposed to be transitive.

I'm mad at Tepper because I loved her early stuff so much. The Marianne books, for instance, are deep and magical.

It's certainly not poor taste, Katerina. I was a Tepper fan until she hit the "when good writers go insane" line. Even then, I think if you only read one of the later books, the fact that she's started seeing the world through a crack that's about half an inch wide wouldn't be as obvious.