Oooh, people who share my opinion of Tepper. I loved Grass, thought it was marvelous and bizarre and so creative. And I liked a few others, but Beauty squicked me something awful, I couldn't make heads or tails out of it, and almost everything else has been too anvilly to be believed. So I don't read her anymore.

Although there was one that I thought had a good point to make, which was about the concept that western culture has about women and motherhood, that fallacy that all women are naturally good mothers, that the mere fact of bearing a child would make one love their child and look after them properly. She kind of tore that one down into little bits and stomped on it, and I was happy for that. Because we're biologically encoded to bear, but I don't think we're biologically coded to rear. That's culture and personality. t /rant

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.

WHAAAAAA?!

No, I can't make any sense of that.

I haven't read anything by Tepper, and now I don't think I want to.

But you do. You want to read the Marianne novels. You want to read Grass.

I want to go to a meeting now. Really I do.

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.

I didn't get this from Beauty. I actually was kind of amused by bits and pieces of that book (like Snow White being such a git), but not my favorite Tepper. Oddly, my husband likes that one but can't explain why. I think I've read maybe 8 or 9 of her books, and went from loving the language and ideas in Grass to ducking reflexively as I read, in an attempt to avoid the falling anvils.

I did like much of The Family Tree ...I think that's the one where the chef keeps looking up and saying "Grummel grummel." Won't give more than that away, but "grummelling" has been added to my vocab.

Has anyone read Lost by Gregory Maguire? I finished it last night. I thought it was a really interesting idea/concept, extrememly poorly executed. Curious what anyone else thinks.

I read it a couple of years ago, Jess, and I thought pretty much the same things. I really liked the idea, but I didn't get much of the Scrooge connection that was supposed to be there. And while I felt bad for main character (Winnie?), I mostly wanted her to just get a grip. I wish I remembered more details at the moment, but I only just remember feeling sad about the situation and annoyed by the characters' way of dealing with it.

Yeah, the literary backstory that is Maguire's thing (that's my technical word for it) was tenuous.

Aside from its major flaws, a total retcon..

>TB, the fourth book, you mean? Not the series, I hope. I loved the first two - Hollow Hills and Crystal Cave - with a stone passion.

I meant only the fourth book. Mordred was a total retcon. I loved the entire trilogy (even the third one), and always pretend the forth book never happened.

In terms of Tepper; yeah Tepper really does seem to hold views that other feminists are often caricatured as having. Even Andrea Dworkin holds more nuanced views than she is given credit for. Or put it this way; Tepper's particular version of feminism makes Dworkin seem nuanced by comparison.

I also notice that Tepper actually uses her feminism to be quite reactionary on other issues. She seems to hate poor people passionately. Every now and then she will portray a male who is more or less decent, always aristocratic or at least very upper middle class. I don't remember her ever portraying a working man, let alone a poor man who came across as OK.

Even poor women are usually not portrayed very favorably; and when they are, you know that one way or another they are going to end up in an aristocracy. Note that Marianne was only temperorarily poor, having been cheated of a rich inheritance.

I also remember in Beauty, a passing comment to the effect that at least the old knights, chauvinist as they were, were chivaloraus and gallant to women. The comparison was being made to modern high school males.

It seems to me that writing on such a subject, she might have taken about five minutes to do enough research to determine that even at the height of the fashion for chivalary (not a very long portion of the history of knighthood) chivalary was reserved for upper class women. Lower class women were pretty much fair game for very riough seduction and rape. I seem to remember learning this in passing in college from my Freshman Western Civilization textbook.

I loved the Marianne trilogy, and most of the True Game series; so I was really annoyed started tossing anvils.

TB, I am in complete agreement with you, both on the fourth book of the Merlin series and on Tepper's views - hence are snarling smackdown back at the Nebulas when the earth was still cooling.

I would have like to have seen that - or at least read a transcript.