I assume their fan bases read them BECAUSE of their agendas, not for great literary merit.

I don't know that I'm Clancy's fanbase, but I did read quite a number of his books, because I thought he wrote engagingly (so long as I skipped over the loving descriptions of weapons and battleships and planes and... okay, so that's about a third of the books, but still). I probably am Tepper's fanbase, but I wouldn't say I read her for her agenda either (although as I recall from the bios at the back of her books, she worked for Planned Parenthood for some time) -- Grass contained one of the most interesting original worlds that I'd read, with an ecosystem both seriously thought out and intriguingly foreign (though I don't claim plausibility for it). Her politics are always there, and I completely understand how they can ruin the books for people, but I really do like her writing.

---

My textual support for my statement comes mostly from A Plague of Angels wherin the Mormon-analogue men kidnap little girls to marry.

Which were the Mormon-analogues? I don't remember them -- though there are so many bits in that novel, I have trouble remembering them all. I'm pretty sure she equates all patriarchal institutions with fear-based oppression of women, so it's not a shock. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with man-hating -- she certainly shows a willingness to see the worst in them, but she has a number of "good" male characters (well, if I'm remembering correctly).

---

This interests me because I'm trying to learn how to make a political statement when I write without beating people with it. It might be easier in crime fiction land, although my boyfriend in my tag is very careful to refute any strong intentions in that area. Instead though, I think he sneaks it in with the cops, dealers, and about forty-seven new to me words for pot. I know that all chronic is gage, but is all gage chronic? Or just hydroponic?

---

Grass contained one of the most interesting original worlds that I'd read, with an ecosystem both seriously thought out and intriguingly foreign (though I don't claim plausibility for it). Her politics are always there, and I completely understand how they can ruin the books for people, but I really do like her writing.

I quite like that book, too, including the follow-ups "Raising the Stones" and "Sideshow." Yes, her patriarchy-phobia gets away from her a lot, but she can pull off a heck of a story. My biggest complaint with her is that she doesn't seem to recognize that there are women who have a taste for violence and physical expressions of power. The vast majority of her women all seem to crave some pastoral world where they can get on with raising the babies.

---

The vast majority of her women all seem to crave some pastoral world where they can get on with raising the babies.

They don't all seem to want to raise babies (or I could be misremembering), but they're certainly filled with the Creative Life Energy which Runs In Most Women, aren't they? I tend to think of Gibbon's Decline and Fall as the most egregiously political of her books -- even more so than Gate to Women's Country -- and take that as a template.

---

I tend to think of Gibbon's Decline and Fall as the most egregiously political of her books -- even more so than Gate to Women's Country -- and take that as a template.

Is it mores so than Fresco with its noncon Republican MPREG? That's what made me say no more. I'd like to collect her YA, but I don't even want to reread her other work I'd previously enjoyed.

---

Are you asking if it's my opinion that Tepper has equated Mormonism with pedophilia, or if Tepper's saying it's her opinion?

Just looking for more detail. It's a Feminist Hare-Brained Counter-Narrative I'd never heard before. (For all affectionate/exasperated values of "hare-brained".)

Hm. Well-done political/social statements. Edith Wharton seemed to make her points via parody, creating characters who never saw their own folly but enacted it for the reader's edification. I'm not a huge fan of that style -- it's alienating by definition -- but it's not necessarily anvilicious.

I suppose it's also a question of how thesis-oriented your statement wants to be. If you're trying to create a space where _____ neglected subjectivity is given the time of day, that's one kind of statement; if you're trying to prove that essentialist politics need to be beaten with a stick, that's another.

---

I don't want him to tell me about his mother;

I'm sorry; I sounded as if I was attacking you, and that wasn't my intent.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't care whether Card, personally, has child-abuse issues; I'm just sick of the fact that his *books* have child-abuse issues. Which is what you were saying.

---

I sounded as if I was attacking you, and that wasn't my intent.

No worry on that front. I realized I was using the term rather broadly. Glad to know we are in agreeance and consensification.

So! What other giants of SF literature can we trample under our feet this irritating Monday afternoon? Shall we do another one of those "Ollie Ollie Oxen Free I Hated This [SF] Classic And I'll Tell You Why" days?

---

My issue with Card was an article he wrote regarding gay marriage.

His point was this: "There is nothing against gay marriage. There is no law against homosexuals marrying.

So long as they marry someone of the opposite sex."

Which, to me, is the height of idiocy, purposeful obtuseness and speaks to a wrong-headed arrogance and close-mindedness.

So...I enjoy the Shadow books. I will probably continue to read Card, though not with as much enthusiasm as I might've before.

---