This file comes from the Science Fiction and Fantasy RoundTable (SFRT, page
470) on GEnie, and is Copyright (c) 1995 by GEnie.
 
                              ***
 
To sign up on GEnie, follow these simple steps:
 
 1. Set your communications software for half-duplex (local echo), at 300,
    1200 or 2400 baud.
 2. Dial toll free: 1-800-638-8369 (or, in Canada, 1-800-387-8330).  Upon
    connection, enter HHH
 3. At the U#= prompt, enter DRC524 then press <RETURN>.
 4. Have a major credit card ready.  In the U.S., you may also use your
    checking account number.
 
For more information in the United States or Canada, call 1-800-638-9636
or write:  GEnie, c/o GE Information Services, P.O. Box 6403, Rockville, MD
20850-1785.
 
 
 
 ************
Topic 4         Sat Nov 09, 1991
A.RASMUSSEN1 [Alis]          (Forwarded) 
Sub: Mannerpunk                             

Fantasy of Manners and other forms of cross-dressing.  Is cross-genre writing
the coming trend in genre fiction?  Can genre fiction be cross- marketed?  Is
this making the field stronger?
226 message(s) total.
 ************
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 1         Wed Dec 07, 1994
L.TILTON [Lois]              at 21:26 EST

<waving to Delia>

Has anyone written a new, interesting mannerpunk work recently?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 2         Wed Dec 07, 1994
E.WILLEY                     at 23:50 EST

I sent Don mail awhile ago asking if I could upload his original Fantasy-of-
Manners essay and make it available via my www page, but he never replied---
maybe the GEnie mailer ate it, urp.


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 3         Wed Dec 07, 1994
LACE [E.Gilligan]            at 23:55 EST

I'm -working- on one.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 4         Thu Dec 08, 1994
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 08:15 EST

Must have eaten it. Never heard. I doublechecked (a formality, really) with
the NYRSF brass and there's no bar to its being made available electronically,
so permission is gladly granted. (Did you retype it???) I wish, at this late
date, that it were less of a review and more of an essay, but that's the
breaks.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 5         Thu Dec 08, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 18:21 EST

So, maybe you could make it an essay.  There's more to be said, after all this
time and discussion, especially about the ties between Mannerpunk (sigh.  I
wish we could change the nomenclature, I do.) and Post-Modernism. Post-
Mannerism?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 6         Thu Dec 08, 1994
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 18:26 EST

Neal Stephenson's =The Diamond Age= shares many of the traits of empunk, but I
doubt it will be made canonical.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 7         Thu Dec 08, 1994
M.SWANWICK1 [Michael]        at 19:34 EST

Delia, if you want to change the name, go right ahead.  I'm certain that Don
wouldn't be offended.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 8         Thu Dec 08, 1994
E.WILLEY                     at 21:29 EST

Don, the GEnie mailer sucks.  I should have just phoned.  Anyway, I have not
retyped it, so if you want to try mailing me an ASCII dump or a disk, that
would be approaching-infinitely preferable.

I'd happily replace it with a slick essay later, if you wanted to rework it.

I also hate the term "Mannerpunk" and have for lo these many years, but it
seems to have been adopted, and, like all relatives, must be lived with.


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 9         Thu Dec 08, 1994
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 22:30 EST

All right, here's a question: are RATS AND GARGOYLES and THE ARCHITECTURE OF
DESIRE fantasy of manners or not?  Compare and contrast.  Neatness counts.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 10        Thu Dec 08, 1994
L.TILTON [Lois]              at 22:45 EST

I say yes.  The character of Casaubon (sp?) alone ensures it.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 11        Fri Dec 09, 1994
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 05:16 EST

Of course they are, the latter especially.  (In the latter book, alternate
puritans vie with alternate cavaliers.  The fact that the puritans have more
fun and dress better, but are morally atrocious, is an automatic qualifier.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 12        Fri Dec 09, 1994
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 07:28 EST

The term the writer of the original essay came up with is "fantasy of
manners." "Mannerpunk" was a joke name which has stuck for (basically) a
slightly different form.

I haven't read Mary Gentle myself, but I believe it belongs to the form.

Ken: So tell us about the Stephenson.

Fantasy of manners =is= postmodern, perhaps the most characteristic form of
postmodern fantasy.

I'm not sure there still exists a disc copy of my original essay; =I=
certainly don't have one. I'll institute research.

I don't foresee any time soon having the time or the impetus to write a
better, more up to date essay. Not that I wouldn't like to.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 13        Fri Dec 09, 1994
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 07:39 EST

I had serious problems with THE ARCHITECTURE OF DESIRE, but they didn't spring
from its Mannerpunk qualities -- more from the fact that the structure of the
book required a major and fairly sympathetic character to do a morally
atrocious thing, and failed to convince me that it was the _kind_ of morally
atrocious thing that that particular character would do.  (The sort of person
who will take a bribe is not the sort of person who will torture a kitten, and
neither one of them is the sort of person who will blow up a building in order
to speed up society's progress toward a more equitable social order.  These
things have to match to be believable.)

Debra

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 14        Fri Dec 09, 1994
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 08:25 EST

I agree with Debra:  the unconscionable act that Gentle's protagonist commits
(it comes 3/4 of the way through the book) is not plausible:  Gentle needed it
for her plot dynamics.  But the rest of the book is fun.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 15        Fri Dec 09, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 20:01 EST

I don't know.  I'll have to re-read the book in order to argue this properly,
but I wasn't bothered by the plausibility of the u.a. (unconscionable act),
although I was certainly bothered by the act itself.  (Would anyone mind, do
you think, if we blew this particular gaff?  It's very difficult to carry on
this kind of discussion when you can't refer to specific persons and actions
for fear of spoiling the plot).
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 16        Fri Dec 09, 1994
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 21:18 EST

   *** SPOILER WARNING ***

I found ARCHITECTURE very compelling; I admire anyone attempting to explain
(=not= justify) rape, especially to make the case that  desire, untramelled,
can lead (?any of us) into an unconscionable act, and that we all need to live
with the consequences of unstructured desire.  The gender-bending is merely
another coloration.

For the record, I think any alternate English Civil War with Queen Charlotte
and General Olivia and gentleman-mercenaries of both sexes =has= to be FoM.
But the books are certainly =not= Elfpunk.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 17        Fri Dec 09, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 21:45 EST

I like the phrase "unstructured desire," and I think that's closer to what
went on than rape, which is more about power, the need to dominate and/or
humiliate than it is about sex.  As I said, I'll have to read it again to
ensure that I don't stick my foot in my mouth, but it's my impression that
power was less an issue in that relationship than carnal attraction was.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 18        Sat Dec 10, 1994
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 02:37 EST

The pseudo-Puritans dressed better and had more fun?

He's right; this is =very= alternate history.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 19        Sat Dec 10, 1994
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 08:39 EST

It was the pseudo-Cavaliers.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 20        Sat Dec 10, 1994
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 09:18 EST

The rape (or whatever we decide to call it) in THE ARCHITECTURE OF DESIRE
failed to work for me, as I said before, because the author had failed to
convince me that if/when the perpetrator fell from grace, as it were, that it
would be in that particular fashion.

I had trouble believing in the cross-gendered version of Charles II, as well,
though that's a minor quibble, since the cross-gendered version of Oliver
Cromwell worked just fine.

Debra

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 21        Sat Dec 10, 1994
E.WILLEY                     at 14:24 EST

I too could not believe that that character would do that at that moment. I
might have believed it with better background or buildup, but in all previous
works with that character and in _AoD_, that character had not demonstrated
any potential for such an act.  But I had trouble believing a lot of things in
that book.

On the other hand, Casaubon demanding directions of the weathercock is one of
the better scraps of genre fiction I've seen.  And now I'm going to become
very upset, because my copy of _AoD_ is _missing_.


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 22        Sat Dec 10, 1994
E.KUSHNER [Ellen]            at 15:56 EST

Howbout if we call it "Mannerist" fantasy?  I see a lot of similarities
between it and the 17c Mannerist music of Carlo Gesualdo, Mad Prince of
Venosa, and Mannerist art of the post-Renaissance (Post-Raphaelite?) -- in
fact, downstairs somewhere in the vortex of paper that is my study I have some
CD liner notes that describe it very well-- let me go look.

And once again, mea culpa maximally:  I made Don call it Fantasy of Manners
because I would not let him call it "The Fourth Street School".  And I was
right, too - at least about half of it.  Would that you(pl.) had been there to
come between us.  I never was any good at titles.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 23        Sat Dec 10, 1994
R.DAVIS68 [Ray]              at 23:46 EST

Ellen, do you subscribe to NYRSF?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 24        Sun Dec 11, 1994
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 06:07 EST

Mannerpunk is not Fantasy of Manners is not the Fourth Street School is not
the P.J.F.  But there's a lot of overlap.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 25        Sun Dec 11, 1994
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 08:25 EST

"That depends on whether I subscribe to NYRSF's principles or its mistress!"
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 26        Sun Dec 11, 1994
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 09:49 EST

Ray: I was about to say much the same thing. The lack can be remedied.

David: You are, of course, correct.

I'm really lousy at nomenclature.

Ellen: I suppose I have never told you that I adore Gesualdo. Weirdest
composer before the 20th century, in my opinion. Is that THE MANNERIST
REVOLUTION that you have? A really good survey CD. But the Consort of
Musicke's recording of Gesualdo's Fifth Book of Madrigals is one of my
favorite CDs, period.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 27        Sun Dec 11, 1994
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 14:00 EST

"Mannerist" fantasy is fine.  There seems to me to be much sympathy of
esthetic between ARCHITECTURE OF DESIRE and SWORDSPOINT, although certainly
they fall 'way to one side of the Mannerist spectrum.

Does anyone know if there is another White Crow/Casaubon novel in the works?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 28        Sun Dec 11, 1994
E.WILLEY                     at 14:41 EST

I believe I tried saying "mannerist" fantasy a few years back and was firmly
corrected...

Gentle is supposed to have been working on another White Crow/Casaubon novel,
which sounded sort of science-fictional and had something to do with computers
and a sharp title---I believe it may already be in print in Britain, or
scheduled for soon.  Sorry to be so vague, but: there is more coming, yes.


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 29        Sun Dec 11, 1994
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 14:43 EST

Science-fictional would not especially surprise me:  we all noticed, I trust,
that the first two novels were not set in the same universe.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 30        Sun Dec 11, 1994
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 15:10 EST

I noticed that.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 31        Sun Dec 11, 1994
E.KUSHNER [Ellen]            at 22:07 EST

Ray, No I don't.  When would I read it???

(Greg-_What_??)

Elizabeth:  and you were right.

PK, yeah, I love Mary Gentle's work, and she says she's done a new one in
which Casaubon is a hacker.  Mary has actually been of great help to  me with
my new novel: when I had dinner with her in London in '92, I told her about
it, and when I got to the blind swordsman, she got a weird look in her eye and
demanded that I come out to Stevenage next day and meet her then-boyfriend,
who happens to be a legally blind guy who has invented a whole new way of re-
creating historical (esp. 17c) rapier-fighting.  I learned a huge amount from
him, including how he knew how not to hit me in a trial bout!

It was also remarkably useful to try on Mary's own gear, an authentic rapier
and dagger on a leather swordbelt/hanger; walking with that on taught me more
about it than anything else--the cross-dress equivalent of a corset and
hoopskirt, I'd say (in terms of sensual experience, not restriction--although
there's that, too--getting through narrow doors was tricky, as was sitting
down!).

Don, do you like Paul Hillier's Hilliard Singers?  I think their Gesualdo
album is heavenly.  (They've recorded most of Arvo Part too)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 32        Sun Dec 11, 1994
L.TILTON [Lois]              at 22:21 EST

Does Mary Gentle have any explanation for her characters appearing in
different universes?

Not that one is strictly required, of course.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 33        Sun Dec 11, 1994
E.KUSHNER [Ellen]            at 22:35 EST

I haven't asked her.  But I'm liable to play the same trick myself, and wasted
a lot of time feeling guilty about it, until I remembered that one of my
Bright, Particular Stars, M.John Harrison, does it all the time.  I think it's
deep or something.  Certainly not self-indulgent.

Actually, it makes a certain amount of sense:  if we're putting these people
in fantastical universes to give them new and interesting  situations to live
up to, to distance ourselves from our own while coming (sez Le Guin, and I
ain't fighting) closer to its true heart, then why restrict ourselves to just
one??
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 34        Sun Dec 11, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 22:53 EST

My feeling was that time (and space) work differently in a universe in which
there are five cardinal points to a compass.

I haven't quite finished (OK, I'm only half-way through) AoD, but I have an
idea that the behavior in question is indeed prepared.  If I'm going to make
the argument, I'm going to have to drop the coy periphrases, though, or it's
going to sound like so much gibberish.  If anyone objects to naming names,
please let me know, and I'll put spoiler alerts or something all over it.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 35        Mon Dec 12, 1994
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 18:32 EST

Don,

Running dreadfully late already; will summarise the Stephenson anonish, or
just wait until finished copies are out and we can see one to R.Davis68 (who
should do the NYRSF review, if he ever finishes the one on which he's working,
not that I'm one to talk).

Meanwhile, found this, from Moorcock:

"I was of a generation which enthused over pre-Raphaelite paint and made
Beardsley its own again, who had bought the five shilling Mackintosh chairs
and sixpenny Muchas and ten bob Lalique glass in Portobello Road to decorate
Liberty-oriental pads whose fragrant patchouli never disguised the pungent
dope. They were the best examples we could find in this world to remind us of
what we had seen on our acid voyages."
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 36        Tue Dec 13, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 00:13 EST

MAJOR SPOILER WARNING---

OK.  I finished it.  And I think I see what the problem is.  What Gentle is
positing is a world in which there are no absolutely no cultural differences
between men and women.  Women are mercenary soldiers, priests, magii, absolute
rulers, builders.  They are also (when their personalities are that way
inclined) violent, ambitious, unscrupulous, obsessive, and domineering.  There
is not a penny to choose (morally speaking) between Valentine and Polly
Carmody, even before her slide from grace.  They are genu- inely alike:
violent, sensual.  The differences are that Valentine is more intelligent than
Polly, and she doesn't drink. Furthermore, her life as a Scholar-Soldier and a
Physician-Mage has taught her something about self-control.  Polly's life as a
gentleman-mercenary has not.  He is also easy (at least for me) to dislike and
judge, being a sterling example of the most extreme type of Good-'Ole-Boy.
Valentine is harder, since she was so clearly the heroine of -Rats and
Gargoyles-, and is pre- sented here in as a healer, a mother, a responsible
land-owner, and a voice of reason in a world torn between two emotional and
irresponsible factions.

The problem, then, is partially emotional (we -like- Valentine. She's a -good-
character.  How -could- she do such a thing?), and partially intellectual.  In
order to believe that Valentine would, indeed, do such a thing, we have to
believe not only that part of her wants to brutalize and dominate, but that
this young woman would call out that reaction in her.  She says several times
that she's obsessed with Desire, and indeed there are indications that she
wanted her the first time she saw her.  All descriptions of Desire are very
physical, and Valentine is obviously physically troubled by her presence.  Yet
Desire her- self remains an oddly shadowy figure.  I can believe Polly would
rape her--she is not only beautiful, but she condemns as sinful everything he
has lived by.  Valentine's motives are more com- plex.  The object of her
obsession needs to be clearly delineated, the course of the obsession charted
a little more fully, so that we can understand the blend of good and evil, con-
 science and uncaring impulse, in short, the architecture of her desire for
the young woman.  I can make it up, deduce it from hints here and there, but I
have to work at it.

I wish the book had been longer.  -Rats and Gargoyles- was Man- nerist because
it carefully and colorfully laid out the rules that its society lived by,
giving the characters something to work against.  -AoD- is closer to our own
world, and perhaps Gen- tle thought she didn't need to demonstrate at length
what Honor and Courage and Good Manners mean there.  But you need to know what
the norm is in order to judge departures from it.  And there just isn't enough
evidence in -AoD- to sustain the subtle argue- ment she wants to make.  Pity.
It's a lovely book.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 37        Tue Dec 13, 1994
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 01:04 EST

This sounds like a book that approaches the condition of having the difference
between the good guys and the bad guys being the colour of their hats.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 38        Tue Dec 13, 1994
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 08:51 EST

I came to ARCHITECTURE OF DESIRE never having read RATS AND GARGOYLES, so I
got it "cold" -- I didn't have the previous book to prejudice me either for or
against the characters.  And the rape sequence blindsided me.  If there were
markers leading up to it, they were too subtle for me to catch.  Polly Carmody
I was willing to believe, because he was so clearly being presented as a
character-type who by definition does things like get blind-drunk and then
assume that any woman he finds in a bed at a wild house party is only there
for one reason -- but when Valentine, who _is_ presented as not only more
self-controlled but as just plain brighter all around, then does something
which is, in fact, morally worse (since she doesn't even have the flimsy
excuses of intoxication and misapprehension to fall back on, and since she
knows about -- is in fact furious because of -- what happened already . . .
well, like I said, Gentle lost me there.

Debra

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 39        Tue Dec 13, 1994
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:47 EST

I think one of the important features of AoD is that there =aren't=,
precisely, "good guys" and "bad guys".  Polly, for all his faults, has
insights into human character that Valentine and Casaubon don't. Everyone is
some shade of gray. Gentle doesn't make anything easy.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 40        Wed Dec 14, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 22:31 EST

She sure doesn't.  I am reminded of -The Golden Witchbreed-, her first book,
in which she destroyed the world.  Every rhetorical sign pointed towards her
pulling it out in the ninth reel, but she didn't.  She just went ahead and
killed them all.  She has the courage of her convictions, does Gentle, and
that's a rare thing.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 41        Wed Dec 14, 1994
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:17 EST

This probably wants a  **** SPOILER WARNING ****

<Sherwood - skip this message!!!>

Well, actually, she didn't destroy the world until the sequel, ANCIENT LIGHT.
But she did have her protagonist have a complete breakdown between the two
books, so that =we= remember things the character has forgotten.

I'm just crazy about both GOLDEN WITCHBREED and ANCIENT LIGHT - big, juicy,
complex planet-bound adventures (rather like THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS), full
of difficult, gutsy choices.

I always wondered if one of these years we'd get a third book in that series -
what do you become after your world is destroyed, assuming you get off-planet?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 42        Sun Dec 18, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 18:47 EST

To return to the roots of Mannerism, I was reading Georgette Heyer's --A Civil
Contract-- (Heyer to me is like eggy custard, only not so bland). People don't
talk about it as much as --The Grand Sophy--, say--it's a lot] more like a
real novel than most of her Regencies, and a lot more like the Jane Austen of -
-Persuasion-- and --Mansfield Park--.  True love doesn't triumph.  The hero
learns to depend on and like the heroine, but not to realize that she was the
one he loved all along.  The ingenue is shallow and over-wrought, the hero
himself pernickity and passive-aggressive.  It feels a lot more real, both
psychologically and sociologically, than some of her lighter confections (--
Friday's Child-- and --The Foundling--, for instance, and no one is
particularly witty or mannered (in the --Black Sheep-- or --Devil's Cub--
sense).  I like it very much, and find the characters very appealing, but
then, I would. What do y'all think?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 43        Sun Dec 18, 1994
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 20:36 EST

Mostly, I think that A CIVIL CONTRACT isn't the sort of Georgette Heyer that
people read Georgette Heyer for.  I never cared for it much, I know.

Debra

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 44        Sun Dec 18, 1994
D.EGAN4 [Doris]              at 22:28 EST

A CIVIL CONTRACT is sort of the MANSFIELD PARK of Heyers.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 45        Mon Dec 19, 1994
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 05:55 EST

  A Civil Contract is depressing, because it remains realistic, but it's good
stuff.  This from someone who doesn't consider depressing a good point, mind
you.  I admired the heroine, who isn't a Mary Sue, and the fact that her hard
work is rewarded, but not with mad love from outer space.

  As for A of D -- I liked it but never felt I understood it.  My exclamations
and gesticulations (via email) to Tanaqui were met with calm, profound, gnomic
utterances which made me feel like a slightly retarded Philistine for asking,
so I still don't know.  But (because I refused to believe that Valentine was
that awful, and was willing to believe that Polly Carmody was telling the
truth?) it seemed to me that Desire-of-the-Lord was rather a strange creature.
That it was something about her that made her such a test of virtue, and I
don't mean just her looks.  And that she knew it without really knowing it,
and used it, but never came to terms with using it.

  Valentine doesn't just abuse a stranger (and forget to tell her something
she needs to know, which in my book is almost as bad regardless of
consequences -- malpractice, for one thing...)  Her lover tells her he doesn't
know if he can deal with her obsession, and she tells him that that will not
necessarily stop her.  I don't see Valentine as that greedy or lacking in self-
control, to be at the mercy of an obsession with a pretty face.

  Surely Desire is the incarnation of that fragile sexual power that men in
our world claim to be at the mercy of, and which nevertheless has apparently
destroyed more women that it has enthroned?  Perhaps that's what's wrong about
her:  the other figures in her world, especially female figures, have real,
self-determining power that does not place them in the hands of others (though
they may end up there for other reasons, it isn't the source of their power
itself that puts them there) and so we have no way of comparing her status to
that of other objects of desire (do we see any male ones?  I don't recall.)
She seems like an emissary from a world without even approximate sexual
equality (the world of the Puritans, I suppose, and yet Olivia is female) and
out of place here.  Perhaps if she had been male?

  --Dawn
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 46        Mon Dec 19, 1994
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 07:02 EST

There always seemed to me, in A of D, to be large chunks of motivation and
explanation missing.  Possibly they were implied, but if so, they were implied
with such subtlety that I missed them.  (And I am not, she says miffily,
exactly an untrained reader.)

Debra

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 47        Mon Dec 19, 1994
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 10:14 EST

What is "A of D"?  All I can come up with is "Agenbite of Dimwit."
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 48        Mon Dec 19, 1994
L.TILTON [Lois]              at 10:36 EST

Architecture of Desire, Greg.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 49        Wed Dec 21, 1994
SHERWOOD                     at 10:58 EST

Thanks for the warning, Pauka Kate.  (I Averted my Eyes.)

MUST get these books.

I dislike A CIVIL CONTRACT because it masquerades as a realistic novel, but it
is actually a Cinderella ("Poor me") novel.  I can just stick the hero who is
in love with a woman who conveniently reveals herself to be a twit, but that
the heroine was in love with him all along, and thus gets to Suffer in Silence
makes me tired.  I wish, if Heyer had wanted to examine two realistic people
of the Regency period making a civil contract, the two had scarcely known one
another.  I would have been interested in how their worlds collide, how they
do contrive to get alonng, and if the hero's love had not conveniently turned
out to be a twit, how he would have dealt with those feelings.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 50        Wed Dec 28, 1994
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 06:43 EST

  Sherwood, I'd like to read that realistic Regency myself.  As long as it
wasn't too grim.  Damn, I'd like to be fully over depression so that I can get
back to reading what I like, even if it's gut-wrenching! Or even so that I can
give _Finder_ a fair reading...

  Speaking of which, what's the latest on the Border?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 51        Sat Dec 31, 1994
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 16:13 EST

Fair enough, Sherwood.  I have problems being at all objective about Heyer,
mostly because I read her (over and over again) at a very  impressionable age,
and therefore can't really see her clearly.  All my adolescent, unfiltered
adoration of costumes, strange words and constructions, and worlds where
everything turned out more or less well in the end blurs my analytical
abilities.  I still think Civil Contract is the closest Heyer could come to a
psychologically realisitic novel, and that she did not a terrible job, given
the limitations of her aesthetic and the world she was writing for.

Dawn, I think you're absolutely right about Desire.  I just don't think that
all that stuff about beauty and power is actually in the text.

As for the Bordertown stuff, there's another anthology in the pipeline (I'm in
it this time, brag, brag), but no news about when it's going to come out.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 52        Sat Dec 31, 1994
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 16:43 EST

Have you read Joan Aiken Hodge's biography of Heyers, Delia?  A very
interesting work, which presents its subject in a rather unattractive light.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 53        Sat Dec 31, 1994
SHERWOOD                     at 17:59 EST

"Given the limitations of her aesthetic and the world she was writing for..."
Hits right on target.

I too read Heyer at a young, impressionable age, and devoured them again and
again during dark times.  But after I discovered Jane Austen, I lost interest
in Heyer, except as a fond memory, for nearly a decade.  When I reread them,
it was strange, how the books had changed.  Despite all the creaks and cracks
and crevasses there are certain ones I can still really enjoy (and portions of
others). And as a secondary world creator, Heyer is up there with the best.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 54        Sun Jan 01, 1995
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 09:23 EST

  Well, Delia, you certainly seem to have got over that adolescent taste for
worlds in which everything works out happily...  Shock us all and give your
next a happy ending, won't you?

  As for Desire:  I didn't think it was in the text, either, but Tanaqui
seemed to, so... I suppose the next step would be writing fanfic. (*No*, I
don't mean that seriously, honored authors.)

  Heyer during dark times:  yes, absolutely.  My favorite hero for the dark
times may have been Sherry.  Or perhaps Freddy...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 55        Wed Jan 04, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 19:42 EST

But, Dawn, I -did- give PD a happy ending.  M'sieur's got his birds, Leon's
got his, er, little habits, Jean's got his demon mistresses, Berthe and Adele
have each other, and the winds of change are beginning to blow through
Beauxpres as Berthe joins the cast at last and begins to act.  I imagine that
they'll all go on--to Heaven, perhaps, or, in (strike everything after
"Heaven".  I haven't got time to look up how to change things.)  Except, of
course, M'sieur and Leon, who are in Hells of their own making.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 56        Wed Jan 04, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 20:21 EST

I thought that the mis en scene at the end of THE PORCELAIN DOVE was an
encapsulated hell for all its principals, but did notice that they didn't
seem, even after two hundred years, to think so.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 57        Fri Jan 06, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 18:27 EST

The idea in the back of my mind was to create something like the foothills of
Heaven in C.S. Lewis' book (the title slips my mind), where the damned can go
to talk to the blessed, and even join them if they really want to. Most of
them don't want to give up their sins, not even in sight of Heaven. Some of
them, however, do, (the man ridden by lust kills the reptile that whispers in
his ear, and it turns into a glorious horse that carries him to Heaven.  I no
longer remember whether that was what was in my mind consciously, but I do
know I thought they'd be able to get out of Beauxpres and go on if they wanted
to.  They just had to figure out that they could. And be ready for the next
step, which they weren't when they got there. Is all that in the text?
Probably not.  I see it, but then, I would.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 58        Fri Jan 06, 1995
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 19:22 EST

  Delia, I didn't know whether it was supposed to be as you describe, or as
Greg does, and I'm reassured.  The meaning of the world they came from -- the
traps they were in there -- seems to me to change depending on whether their
escape is meant to be a worse trap or a real, possible escape.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 59        Fri Jan 06, 1995
E.WILLEY                     at 21:24 EST

What in Linotte grants her a divine ability, to translate others from Earth to
the foothills, as you call them, of heaven?


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 60        Sat Jan 07, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 03:34 EST

The C.S. Lewis book Delia is thinking of is THE GREAT DIVORCE.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 61        Sun Jan 08, 1995
A.LEWKOWICZ [Artemisia]      at 13:27 EST

  It was clear that they were not in a static condition, at the end.  The
ghost (name forgotten) was growing up, Justin was beginning to smile. _Some_
kind of change was beginning.

What I wondered about was whether there was a next step, what it would be, and
what the road to it was (assuming it was something other than learning to like
where one was).  It couldn't be a matter of conventional Christian piety
(suggested, in this conversation, by the use of the word Heaven)-- Justin was
pious to an extreme, and yet here he was with the rest of them.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 62        Mon Jan 09, 1995
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 07:16 EST

For what it's worth, I read the ending more or less as Delia just expressed
it.

And piety doesn't necessarily have anything to do with salvation.  Sometimes
quite the opposite.

Debra

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 63        Wed Jan 11, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 23:07 EST

Elizabeth:  There's nothing particularly holy or blessed about Linotte. In my
mind, the foothillness of Beauxpres has to do with Grace and the
incalculability of magic and its effects.  God moves in wondrous ways, (make
that Mysterious.  I'm hungry.) His wonders to perform.  And all this from a
badly fallen-off Episcopalien who not only can't spell, but isn't always sure
what she believes.  All this, you have to understand, is very much wisdom
after the fact.  When I wrote it, I just wrote what made emotional sense to
me.  Idiosyncratic theology.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 64        Thu Jan 12, 1995
A.LEWKOWICZ [Artemisia]      at 22:05 EST

  Debra:  true enough.

I was very impressed with the book and am looking forward to the next one.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 65        Wed Jan 18, 1995
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 07:13 EST

  Idiosyncratic theology... does anyone else here have a personal pantheon of
human archetypes?  I did for a while, but it's become large and muddled with
experience...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 66        Thu Jan 19, 1995
M.ROBINS [Madeleine]         at 23:20 EST

O God, I gave up and went away because no one was playing, and here I come
back and stuff has been happening.  I go now to read too many  messages....
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 67        Thu Jan 19, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 23:22 EST

Yes, Medeleine, people play behind your back.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 68        Fri Jan 20, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 07:39 EST

AND, more importantly, we don't tell you!
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 69        Sat Jan 21, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:31 EST

So start it off. Maybe not a personal pantheon, but something a topic more
topical: The Mannerpunk Pantheon.

Suggestions--filed, strangely, as an amicus curiae (sp?) brief--would include
Diana Rigg, Alan Rickman, Lord Peter Wimpsey, Dorothy Dunnett when she's not
writing books with "FAX" in the title, and Lin Carter for the Ballantine Adult
Fantasy Series.

<in best Mike-Myers-getting-all-ferclempt voice> Discuss.

(Or not, as the case may be.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 70        Sat Jan 21, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 08:36 EST

Richard Lester.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 71        Sat Jan 21, 1995
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 10:35 EST

Leslie Charteris, for the Saint stories?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 72        Sat Jan 21, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 15:26 EST

I'd admit never having seen an empunker declare Charteris on the level of
Sayers or Heyer...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 73        Sat Jan 21, 1995
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 16:53 EST

Ah, but I'm not an m-punker.  (I just read the stuff.)   Besides, not all
literary influences come from the realm of  high, or even middle, art.
Especially, I think, in this  particular subdivision of the genre.

Debra
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 74        Sat Jan 21, 1995
S.THOMPSON8 [Sarah]          at 19:05 EST

Charteris as a demigod, perhaps?  But I'm interested to see these responses,
because my interpretation of the original suggestion was a pantheon of
archetypal MP-ish characters rather than actual people, e.g.  Emma Peel
instead of Diana Rigg, Lymond instead of Dorothy Dunnett.  Well, you did
mention Lord Peter.  I'd add Sherlock Holmes, of course, and Captain Nemo.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 75        Sun Jan 22, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 10:55 EST

The Saint probably enters into it somewhere. I certainly read gobs of it in my
youth.

THE MAN FROM UNCLE and THE PRISONER as well as THE AVENGERS.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 76        Sun Jan 22, 1995
SHERWOOD                     at 13:32 EST

The Scarlet Pimpernel, then, as he's the prototype for Winsey and the rest of
those fellows.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 77        Sun Jan 22, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 19:15 EST

Yes, Sarah.  Exactly.  Diana Rigg seems to be (from her appearances on ----
Mystery-- to be far too much like Margaret Thatcher to be Romantic. It's the
artificiality of the personae that is mannerist.  I'd nominate Peter O'Toole,
however, because so many of his roles were mannered, and his public persona so
public.  --The Prisoner of Zenda--.  Albert Campion. Madonna.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 78        Sun Jan 22, 1995
AMYSUE [Amysue]              at 21:31 EST

Delia:I am reading Porcelain Dove and just wanted to let you know that I am
truly enjoying it.  It's a beautiful book.-amysue
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 79        Sun Jan 22, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:22 EST

Cyrano de Bergerac.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 80        Mon Jan 23, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 01:17 EST

The Scarlet Pimpernel is definitely a believable model for Wimsey's ridiculous
nighttime antics in MURDER MUST ADVERTISE; fortunately, this side of his
character is otherwise ignored.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 81        Mon Jan 23, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:38 EST

Thought for a minute that Delia had nominated =Thomas= Campion to the
pantheon.

Debra>Would never suggest that the sources were primarily from "high" art.

Sarah-li>I suggested Emma Peel i/o Ms. Rigg for reasons that Delia's posting
makes clear. Though I'd admit that, were the empunkers 10-15 years younger, I
would have suggested "Stephanie Zimbalist" instead of "Laura TK from
_Remington Steele_," probably because I (rightly or wrongly) see Ms. Rigg's
career as being more divers.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 82        Mon Jan 23, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 06:46 EST

Laura Holt. Definitely a mannerist character (first half of first season
anyway), as is Diana Rigg's Emma Peel character in =The Avengers=.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 83        Mon Jan 23, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 07:10 EST

Madonna?????
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 84        Mon Jan 23, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 07:16 EST

I'm sorry to betray my ignorance, but if I don't ask, I'll never learn.  Can
someone give me a brief definiton of mannerpunk?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 85        Mon Jan 23, 1995
P.GRANZEAU [Pete]            at 19:40 EST

Fluffy Frog:  I believe a _short_ definition is impossible (judging by the
past conversations in this Topic).

How about Ellen Kushner's _Swordplay_ (do I have that title correct?) as a
short definition?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 86        Mon Jan 23, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 20:38 EST

A whole book is a _short_ definition? Wow.

Ok, does it have punkish elements like Gibson?

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

Are there Dragons?

I've been lurking here off and on for years, and I've got _no_ idea of what
the genre means.

Perhaps my feeble brain, more interested in action-adventure, mystery, and
space opera, can't comprehend these subtleties.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 87        Mon Jan 23, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 22:41 EST

Let's see how briefly I can do it =this= time.

Fantasy of manners (my term; "mannerpunk" is a rough synonym) is the fantasy
equivalent of "the novel of manners" as characterized by Jane Austen, though I
think =Jane Eyre= is a more exact parallel. Swashbuckle (descended through
=The 3 Musketeers= and =The Prisoner of Zenda=) is another important element.
Stir in Tolkien and Le Guin, traditional folk music played by rock bands.

Ellen Kushner's =Swordspoint= and Emma Bull's =War for the Oaks= are among the
earliest clearest examples of the type (both 1987).

Will that do for starters?

I wrote an article on the form, "The Manner of Fantasy," in =The New York
Review of Science Fiction= #32 quite a few years ago now (that monthly is up
to issue #78). Alas, the article does not exist in electronic form any more,
so if it were to be loaded into the GEnie library it would have to be scanned
or retyped.

(Oh, the "punk" part: Terri Windling's Bordertown shared world has human and
elvin--I hate that form of the adjective, but it's the one used there--
teenagers hang out together and ride motorcycles and play rock music.)

(These paragraphs all in parentheses are dedicated to Jenna Felice.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 88        Mon Jan 23, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 23:06 EST

So sort of Gothic fantasy with swashbuckling, perhaps updated to the 20th
century with motorcycles instead of horses?

Am I getting anywhere close?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 89        Mon Jan 23, 1995
N.BARDSLEY [Nathan]          at 23:49 EST

Geez.  Don, send me a copy of the article and I'll get it electronicized.  I
looked through my milk-crate of skiffy mags and only found two NYRSF, so if I
have a copy, it's not where it belongs.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 90        Tue Jan 24, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:21 EST

Fluffy>Probably closer than anyone wants to admit.

Paula>Neat titleslip.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 91        Tue Jan 24, 1995
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 01:59 EST

  Don, you're definitely getting to a genuine Hillel-version of the Mannerpunk
post; you could certainly have typed that while  standing on one leg.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 92        Tue Jan 24, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 02:07 EST

But could he have typed it with his toes while standing on one arm?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 93        Tue Jan 24, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 06:18 EST

I'm not following this Talmudic discussion at all.

Nathan: Thank you! Done.

I'm not sure "Gothic" is exactly the term (though there is a strong dark
streak coming from the Moorcock/M. John Harrison brand of fantasy), but I
suspect you're getting close.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 94        Tue Jan 24, 1995
D.EGAN4 [Doris]              at 11:22 EST

I see it as "controlled gothic."  A dramatic canvas, but painted in delicate
strokes.  At its most fun, I like to think of it as if the Brontes' juvenilia
had been written by Jane Austen.

I could be the only person with that thought, though.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 95        Tue Jan 24, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 22:06 EST

Gothic?  No, no, a thousand times no.  I refuse to whinny in the same park as
Anne Radcliffe and "Monk" Lewis.  Dramatic and Romantic, certainly.
Melodramatic, upon occasion.  Trembling at the brink, but never entirely over
the top.  At least in mho.

Jane:  Sure, Madonna.  She knows all the conventions inside and out-- she
could never flaut them so efficiently if she didn't.  She's mannered, in the
sense of being (almost entirely) artificial.  She's clever.  She's beautifully
art-directed.  She has clothes-sense (not entirely the same thing as good
taste in clothes).  And she's a Bad Girl.  She also has a sense of the uses of
fantasy, even if it's largely sexual.  I find her aesthetic familiar, if not
always appealing.  Also Annie What'shername of the Eurythmics.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 96        Tue Jan 24, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 23:23 EST

Somebody give me an author and title of a good example of mannerpunk that's in
print, and I'll drop a few bucks at my local bookstore.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 97        Tue Jan 24, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 23:33 EST

SWORDSPOINT (Ellen Kushner) should still be in print. But I don't know "In
print" is such a nebulous concept for me, because I seldom shop for books any
more. Is WAR FOR THE OAKS still in print? (Emma Bull) Isn't Delia (Sherman)'s
THE PORCELAIN DOVE in print in trade paper? What else?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 98        Wed Jan 25, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 00:09 EST

The last time I checked, all three of Emma's books from Ace were still in
print - WAR FOR THE OAKS, FALCON, and BONE DANCE.

The pb of SWORDSPOINT is still readily available.  Try Barnes & Noble/
BookStar.

Caroline Stevermer's A COLLEGE OF MAGICS is just out in pb; it runs through
the edges of Mannerpunk a bit close to the borders of Zenda, but it's part of
the canon.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 99        Wed Jan 25, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 01:02 EST

Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll head out to my bookstore sometime this week.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 100       Wed Jan 25, 1995
E.BRENNER1 [Ellen]           at 02:20 EST

<venturing tentatively out of lurk mode>

If Madonna and Annie Lennox count as m-punk, then how about David Bowie?
 Especially his Ziggy Stardust and Thin White Duke incarnations?

Or how about Laurie Anderson?

Or how about Quentin Crisp?

Just seeing if I'm finally getting the hang of this concept.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 101       Wed Jan 25, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 03:06 EST

Good luck Ellen. I've been lurking through here for a couple of years and I
still have no idea of what "mannerpunk" means.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 102       Wed Jan 25, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 06:33 EST

I would accept Bowie long before Madonna. But maybe that's because I find M
such an aoppalling (rather than appealing) creature. And she is so obviously
Needy.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 103       Wed Jan 25, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 07:52 EST

I'd say Quentin Crisp definitely (as a precursor), David Bowie possibly,
Laurie Anderson doubtful.

Thanks, Paula. I should have remembered that A COLLEGE OF MAGICKS was just out
in paper. Oh, and there's Steven Brust's THE PHOENIX GUARDS and 500 YEARS
AFTER (the latter not quite in paper yet).
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 104       Wed Jan 25, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 08:39 EST

A COLLEGE OF MAGICKS -- a Ruritanian romance, written I would guess for a
female YA audience -- is not mannerpunk in any sense, save that ladies who are
silly over mannerpunk tend to like it, too.

Emma Bull's novels in no way suffer from being none of them mannerpunk.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 105       Wed Jan 25, 1995
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 09:10 EST

Oh, dear.  Do I hear the sound of canon fire in the distance?

Debra
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 106       Wed Jan 25, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 13:52 EST

Obviously, Greg, you are not following this at all.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 107       Wed Jan 25, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 18:48 EST

Ok, I got BONE DANCE  and A COLLEGE OF MAGICS. They're on my pile 'o books
under NOVA, MISSION OF GRAVITY and "Analog." I'll get there sooner or later
and figure out this genre.

Thanks for the suggestions.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 108       Wed Jan 25, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 20:15 EST

Don can explain how those books constitute examples of his "Fantasy of
Manners."  It will be interesting to see if he can get beyond some elaboration
of, People who like FoM also like these.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 109       Wed Jan 25, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 20:53 EST

No, Greg, let me elaborate my brief remark. SWORDSPOINT and WAR FOR THE OAKS
were the type specimens, the exempla, from which I derived my theory. If they
do not fit your understanding of my definition of "fantasy of manners," then
you have failed to understand my theory.

I mean, sheesh. It's like saying NEUROMANCER isn't really cyberpunk.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 110       Wed Jan 25, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 21:00 EST

An argument I might, were I drinking this year, be inclined to try to make.

Greg>_A College of Magicks_ is by a =sui generis= Mannerist author (CS is,
after all, one of the source novelists in "Don's article.") There are books
and authors where the case "it's there only because Donald wants it there" can
be made--I don't have the inclination to waste my time at such right now--
much easier and stronger.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 111       Wed Jan 25, 1995
E.BRENNER1 [Ellen]           at 22:18 EST

Crisp, Bowie . . . ok, now that I've got this concept calibrated against some
personal-favorite cultural icons, I think I'm finally beginning to get the
drift.

Kind of like playing Marco Polo, hmmm?

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 112       Thu Jan 26, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:44 EST

Closer would be playing Errol Flynn playing [Insert Appropriate Name].

Either Jane's making the error of using a value judgment to exclude an icon
who is certainly worthy of inclusion (Madonna), or the political underpinnings
of empunkery necessitate the exclusion.  I'm not certain which way I'd bet.

(For the record, I thought the Thin White Duke was a marvelous creation, but
Don or someone else will have to explain why it would be empunkish, if indeed
it would. Deponent expresseth skepticism.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 113       Thu Jan 26, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 07:06 EST

In the manner of lists, I ALWAYS use Value Judgement to exclude or include.
This may be a fault where YOU come from, but where I come from it is just
common sense!
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 114       Thu Jan 26, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 20:38 EST

I'd say Bowie, yes, but I don't really know enough about him to be able to
argue the point intelligently.  Crisp feels right, too, especially playing
Elizabeth I in --Orlando.--

Another influence no-one has mentioned in at least my memory (which is Not
Good) is Shakespeare.  Went to --As You Like It-- last night, and was struck
with the similarities in temperament between Jaques and, say Alec in
Swordspoint.  I know Caroline is steeped in the bard, as am I, as is Pam Dean,
who may not be One of Us, but is aesthetically within spitting distance.  I
suspect M. Brust is too, although I don't know it of my own knowledge (since I
detect a slightly legal note in the posts recently).
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 115       Thu Jan 26, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 22:51 EST

I have found (once again) the diskette with my Reader's Digest Condensed
Definition of Mannerpunk, which I herewith repost.  Those of you who have read
it twice may skip this passage:

 %%%%%

Mannerpunk, AKA "Fantasy of Manners", the Good Parts edition:

Fantasy of Manners (FoM), as defined by Don Keller, describes fantasy in which
the rules of society are fluid rather than fixed; in which individuals must
determine which actions are "moral" or "right"; in which self-definition is
central; in which the interaction of adults is depicted as role-playing or
"let's pretend" on a grand scale.  What the characters say and think about the
action is more important than the action itself.  FoM is characterized by
words wielded as weapons; by attention to costume and style as outer
reflections of the inner person (and thus with Guise and Disguise); and by
awareness of multiple paradigms of Right Behavior. "Mannerpunk" was originally
a joke label for FoM; these days some of us use it to describe the hipper,
more cynical varieties of FoM.  Some of us don't.

 %%%%%%

We now return you to the previous discussion, already in progress.

A COLLEGE OF MAGICKS certainly qualifies; the thread about properly tailored
and fitted clothes certainly plays on Regency ideas of "clothes making the
man" (or in this case, the woman), but there is a recurring theme of
=appropriate= dress as essential for  self-realization that is common in FoM.
In fact, in rereading my summation (which is what, two years old now?), I am
surprised to find that almost =all= of my criteria match COLLEGE.

Well, okay, I am =not= exactly surprised.  Titillated, maybe.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 116       Fri Jan 27, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 00:21 EST

Pamela Dean is certainly fantasy of manners. Especially TAM LIN.

I notice, once again, that the moment one argues with Greg, he vanishes. Or
turns into Ken.

The problem with citing Shakespeare as an influence is that =every= educated
reader is influenced by Shakespeare. But there's certainly a lot of him
lurking in FoM.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 117       Fri Jan 27, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:17 EST

Jane>If you (singular) are making the value judgment, it might be anomalous.
If you (collective) are all making the same value judgment, it is _de facto_
canonical.

I trust such a distinction makes clear(er) the actual question, which (long
version) runs something like "Jane tends to exclude Madonna, while Delia tends
to accept her. Which is closer to the consensus?"

Let me see: Greg argues that Don includes texts which are not detectably
FoMic, suggesting four (A College of Magicks, Falcon, Finder, and Bone Dance--
make that five, I'm leaving out the Emma Bull novel with all the chapter
titles taken from pop songs).

I point out that, yes, Don tends to do that, but that the texts Greg is
pointing to are _sui generis_ by definition, since the five books cited in the
bibliography to "The Manner of Fantasy" are _Through a Brazen Mirror_, _Wren
to the Rescue_, _Snow White and Rose Red_, and Caroline Stevermer's _The
Serpent's Egg_ and the Wrede/Stevermer _Sorcery and Cecilia_, while _War for
the Oaks_ (the Emma Bull novel whose title I forgot, above) is prominently
mentioned.

How this makes me Greg, or he I, is something that must be intuitive to Mr.
Keller only.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 118       Fri Jan 27, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:42 EST

It is noted for the record, not to mention Mr. Keller's edification, that Greg
has not been on the board--or at least not posted in his own topic--all day.
While screaming "my opponent is in hiding" has been used before by the
Defenders of the Faith--apparently effectively--one would expect that a touch
of research might be done before such bellows were emitted.

(Aside to Patrick: No, g-dd-mn-t, I am =not= trying to "find alleged
discrepancies in The Sainted Theory" or any such thing. I am trying to find
out, nearly four long years after Donald's article was published, if any
consensus has been reached among the practicioners as to what they are doing
[beyond the perfectly fine but rather untaxonomic "writing books we enjoy
writing"].)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 119       Fri Jan 27, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 01:51 EST

Don't feel slighted, Ken; you're not the only one who gets accused of being
unnaturally nitpicky when you're just trying to find out exactly what people
think.

But on your other point, *sigh*, I had thought accusations of deliberate
absences were blessedly rare on GEnie, considering the frequent occurrence of
unintended but unavoidable absences by almost everyone on the board.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 120       Fri Jan 27, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 05:57 EST

Okay--what about Brust's book in the Fairy Tale series? No  one dresses well,
particularly as I remember, but veryone argues art, chapter titles are taken
from painting titles, and the conversation defines the life.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 121       Fri Jan 27, 1995
D.DOYLE1 [Debra]             at 08:05 EST

If the canon of FoM was set forth initially by an outside  observer, rather
than proclaimed from within the movement as a  species of manifesto, then I
don't think it's incumbent upon  the "practitioners" to explain themselves at
all -- except, of  course, in the traditional method used by artists, which is
to  keep on making whatever kind of art they make, and letting the  outside
observers talk about it.

Debra
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 122       Fri Jan 27, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 19:38 EST

Paula, thanks for that definition. It at least gives me a starting place.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 123       Fri Jan 27, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 21:16 EST

Paula Kate:  Right on, girl!  You can write precis for me any day of the week.
That's exactly what FoM turns out to be.  Except, of course, when it isn't.

Ken (or Greg) (just kidding).  College is indeed FoM, I'd even say
axiomatically FoM, except that its author disdains labels and simply (as Doyle
so wisely has said) writes what she writes and lets others make of it what she
will.  So are --Bone Dance-- and --Falcon--, if Don is willing to let SF play
in our sandbox.  The definition, however, must necessarily be fluid.  We want
a useful critical tool, not a Procrustian bed.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 124       Fri Jan 27, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 22:13 EST

FALCON, being a space opera, is neither precisely sf or precisely fantasy; it
assuredly partakes of the some of the most common manifestations of FoM.
Nikki is the sensitive aristo-turned-outlaw, Celtic subclass, who is
excruciatingly talented, hopelessly charismatic, exquisitely  romantic, and
concerned with issues of morality and behavior.  He's Francis Crawford only
better, because he's more polite, he's got dark hair, and he's a crack
spaceship pilot.

FWIW, I don't count Madonna because I don't think she has class. Awareness of
class - and knowing when to use it and when not - is a marker in this
territory.  Bowie has class.

I think it's important to remember that FoM is a modeling system: what model
can we build that explains the similarities we detect among a certain set of
fantasies written over the last 15 years? If the model explains the
similarities, and effectively draws a border between Books That Belong and
Books That Don't Belong, then the model may be useful in helping us to better
understand and appreciate what we read.

For me personally, the two most important markers are: is there a concern with
manners (etiquette), how etiquette functions and how people can use (or abuse)
a knowledge of etiquette?  Are there multiple morally ambiguous choices to be
made, and do the participants conciously make those choices?

Thus, the core of FoM boils down to Correct Behavior, using all of the
overlapping shades of meaning of "correct" and "behavior".
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 125       Fri Jan 27, 1995
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 23:22 EST

  Nikki Falcon is luscious in all ways, but a polite Francis Crawford is
simply an oxymoron.  One might as well say that he's an altruistic Kerr Avon
<g>.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 126       Sat Jan 28, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 09:18 EST

Good stuff, Paula.

I am, incidentally, actually interested in what Greg may have to say; an
articulate adversary position is always useful to hone one's own thinking.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 127       Sat Jan 28, 1995
SHERWOOD                     at 09:38 EST

Paula Kate--if space opera can be FoM, do you think Ex fits?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 128       Sat Jan 28, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 15:18 EST

Absolutely, Sherwood.  In fact, I see a lot of similarities between Nikki
Falcon and Brandon (and between Martin Spinell [sp?] and Markham); from what I
know of when the books were written, that has to be similarity of influences
and not cross-pollination, since the Exordium series in its basic outline was
in place (but not published) when FALCON was written (and published).

BTW, I suspect that Don would consider space opera outisde the boundary
 of FOM, but certainly subject to the same influences.  Don?

 %%%%

On another tack, I wonder if one of the specific origins of the vexed question
of right behavior isn't the Scarlet Pimpernel and Diego de la Vega.  We are
taught that deceit is wrong.  We are aware that deceit =in a good cause= can
be justified.  I suspect this was the first moral ambiguity that I was aware
of, as a child watching ZORRO on Disney.  A person who is too honorable to lie
will find himself with a very limited set of options.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 129       Sat Jan 28, 1995
SHERWOOD                     at 15:25 EST

Righto about the cross-polinization of influences. Gotta tell you sometime
about my conv. with Emma Bull at a con dinner, just after FALCON came out.

I've long suspected that the Scarlet Pimpernel was the father to the bunch of
these barstards.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 130       Sat Jan 28, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 18:57 EST

Excellent definitions, PK.  Dawn, Crawford & Avon may not have had etiquette,
but they may have had class (depending on one's definition), and what they
definitely had was style.  (As opposed to =a= style, which is what Madonna
has.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 131       Sat Jan 28, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 19:38 EST

Interesting, the use of "class."  I realize I'm writing in a classless
society, and that we're all equal under the law, but one of the things that
distinguishes FoM is its understanding and manipulation of class systems.  You
need lower classes to set off the upper classes.  And that 's what Madonna
has.  Lower class.  Glitzed to the max, to be sure. She's a classic parvenue,
a mushroom.  And I'd bet a silk corset-ribbon that she knows it.  She cocks
too self-conscious a snook at Good Taste and Decorum not to.


Why am I defending Madonna?  I got interested in her when I read Garber's book
on Transvestism, took out a video of her Greatest Hits, and got more
interested still.  It's a snake-and-birdlike fascination that I don't want to
examine too closely, but I do think that the Blonde Narcissus is ignored at
one's pop-cultural peril.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 132       Sat Jan 28, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 20:36 EST

This nicely illustrates why I didn't stop with mentioning class, but went on
to say "style".
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 133       Sat Jan 28, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 23:10 EST

I'm not dogmatic about the "fantasy" part of fantasy of manners; there's no
question in my mind that =Falcon= and =Exordium= are part of the body of work.

Both the Scarlet Pimpernel and Zorro are important precursors, directly and
indirectly. Same with Robin Hood.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 134       Sat Jan 28, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 23:29 EST

I haven't disappeared, much less turned into Ken Houghton, but have simply
been distracted by a major project with a pressing deadline, and have been
peeking online only selectively.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 135       Sun Jan 29, 1995
N.BARDSLEY [Nathan]          at 01:31 EST

For some reason I group Walter Jon Williams's =Aristoi= in the same mental box
as =Bone Dance= and =Falcon=.  How FoMmish is it?


Rcvd one (1) copy, New York Review Science Fiction, issue #32.  Prelim
scanning expermnts proved unsucessful, OCR prog crap. (There aren't that many
'i's in a dictionary.) Explore alt scanning methods, such as 24bit scanning
and dither to b&w.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 136       Sun Jan 29, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 07:01 EST

I wish I could write FoM but seem incapable. Maybe it is because I could never
finish reading any Dorothy Dunnet! <g>
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 137       Sun Jan 29, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 10:40 EST

Greg: All my sarcasm aside, I =am= interested in your thoughts on this topic.
When you have time.

Nathan: Thanks for your efforts. Please note that I am willing, and practiced
at, cleaning up and editing messy files. It beats retyping.

=Aristoi= is indeed a close relation, at the very least, of fantasy of
manners. (Williams' main influences, Zelazny and the Moorcock of =An Alien
Heat=, feed into FoM, so it's probably as much common ancestors as actual
partisanship.) Similar remarks apply to at least the faux-Provencal parts of
John Barnes' =A Million Open Doors=.

Ken: So how about talking more about Neil Stephenson's new book?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 138       Sun Jan 29, 1995
A.LEWKOWICZ [TheElbowGirl]   at 12:52 EST

  The many admirers of "Pemberley" will be glad to know that not only does
Emma Tennant have _another_ slim sequel to _Pride and Prejudice_ in print, but
she has also been chosen by St. Martin's Press to write a sequel to _Gone With
The Wind_.

One hopes she will be appropriately rewarded.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 139       Sun Jan 29, 1995
SOUKUP [Martha]              at 13:10 EST

Walter Jon Williams is also directly influenced by Heyer, as well as by any
number of age-of-high-sail novelists.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 140       Sun Jan 29, 1995
A.SHECHTER [Andi & Stu]      at 18:47 EST

Remember Diana Rigg's persona in _the Assassination Bureau_?  Much more
mannered a portrayal...

 Stu Shiffman
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 141       Sun Jan 29, 1995
S.THOMPSON8 [Sarah]          at 18:51 EST

Speaking of influence from Heyer, those Anthony Villiers books by Alexei
Panshin ought surely to count for something somewhere in these calculations.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 142       Mon Jan 30, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 07:29 EST

Yep.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 143       Mon Jan 30, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:21 EST

Do I recall correctly that there is a fourth Anthony Villiers book languishing
unpublished?  Or is it languishing unwritten?

I must admit, I tried to re-read one a year or so ago and couldn't make it
past more than a couple of chapters.  But it may have been a transitory mood.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 144       Mon Jan 30, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 23:26 EST

Some rare-book dealer (the name Barry Smith sticks in the memory) once sent me
a catalogue in which the manuscript proposal for THE UNIVERSAL PANTOGRAPH by
Panshin was listed.  Panshin evidently sold the book to Ace but never finished
it.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 145       Mon Jan 30, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:41 EST

Thanks, Greg.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 146       Tue Jan 31, 1995
M.BLAKE11 [ Mike Blake ]     at 20:45 EST

  "Welcome aboard, Mike!  How's Rhode Island fandom doing these days?"

 Same old same old. Kinda moribund these days.

  "Will RISFA have a party at Boskone?"

 More likely that the RISFA Northerners will; I think most of the rest of us
are commuting.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 147       Wed Feb 01, 1995
LACE [E.Gilligan]            at 18:29 EST

I just finished reading A COLLEGE OF MAGICS by Caroline Stevermer, TOR Books.
Excellent read.  Excellent!
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 148       Wed Feb 01, 1995
D.FRIEDMAN11 [Dawn]          at 19:45 EST

  I would have loved to have liked  _Pemberley_, but I didn't.

  Avon certainly has style, which sometimes rises to the level of class, or
even mensch-hood.  Lymond oozes style, and is frequently a mensch (not that he
would think of it as such), but seems to feel that he can't always afford
class.  Nikki seems to grate on some people for similar reasons, but as we
don't have to hear about *every* moral compromise or desperate decision he
makes, I didn't weary of him as I did of Blondie...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 149       Wed Feb 01, 1995
L.TILTON [Lois]              at 20:30 EST

I was quite pleased to despise PEMBERLY.  I also plan to despise its sequel.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 150       Sat Feb 04, 1995
A.SHECHTER [Andi & Stu]      at 03:17 EST

 > S.THOMPSON8 [Sarah]  Speaking of influence from Heyer, those Anthony
  > Villiers books by Alexei Panshin ought surely to count for something
  > somewhere in these calculations.
 Ah, but Villiers is simply more of the Simon Templar, Scarlet Pumpernickel
archetype.

 Stu Shiffman
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 151       Sat Feb 04, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 11:48 EST

The type (please don't call it archetype) is easy to evoke.  Pulling it off
well is the issue.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 152       Sat Feb 04, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 11:49 EST

Lightness of touch and ironical distance (however much affection is also
there) is also necessary.  The horrid old Baroness Orczy idealized and adored
her Pimpernel; Panshin adopts a much healthier stance toward Villiers.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 153       Tue Feb 07, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 23:17 EST

Rather belatedly (Life is what happens...):

Debra (627)>No one has suggested that an "outside observer" set forth the
Mannerpunk canon, by any realistic sense of the phrase. Which is why it gets
frustrating when he, in his capacity as "Off. Crit." declares the work done
when it clearly isn't (and is, if anything, being blurred by this discussion,
which has left at least one person who is neither I nor Greg declaring that
several years of this has left him no more informed than he was before).

Jane (626)>If FoM means anything--as a "movement" or a "subgenre" or whatever
subcategorization is finally settled upon, and if Steve B. is a member of it
for any of his works (which certainly doesn't seem to be disputed), then _The
Sun, the Moon, and the Stars_ should certainly be included.

(I'd be willing to argue that _SMS_ is more relevant to FoM than _500 beers
After_, but won't bother since I'd simply be accused of "not cooperating.")

Jane again (642)>You were, rightly or wrongly, included as an exemplar of FoM
in The Article. To wit: "[A clearly recognizable sensibility]...exists in
three main branches: the Northeast (Jane Yolen, Ellen Kushner, Terri Windling
as well as ['Delia] Sherman)..." This may or may not be a matter for
refinement, revision, or emendation; I don't pretend to make such evaluations.

Don (643)>I'd love to talk about _The Diamond Age_, but my copy has gone
astray, which leaves me only to render a precis which may leave out important
matters or include irrelevant ones:

An engineer (UMC) is hired by a Lord (UC) to develop a program to teach the
Lord's granddaughter how think. He nicks a copy for himself, but is mugged.
The program--nonotech-based--falls into the hands of a boy from a single-
parent household (no father; several "boy friends," none of whom is
construable as a Nice Man), who gives it to his sister. (Both LC.)

The program teaches through a "fairy tale" motif which parallels the LC girl's
life (rather more clearly, even, than Terri W.'s essay [title forgotten]
that's the penultimate section of _The Armless Maiden_). The goal of the
program is that its student will be able to achieve both true creativity and
the higher class status that (is likely to) accompany such.

There are other matters of plot which have blurred in my Swiss-cheese brain,
but those seem to be a starting point.  Those with a copy of the book handy
should feel free to revise, advise, etc.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 154       Tue Feb 07, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 23:28 EST

THE DIAMOND AGE is steampunk of manners.  So there.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 155       Tue Feb 07, 1995
SOUKUP [Martha]              at 23:36 EST

I thought steampunk was alternate Victoriana, not futuristic Victoriana.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 156       Wed Feb 08, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:24 EST

That's futuristic neo-Victoriana, Martha, which probably makes it allowable
under some post-Raphaelite pre-modern dictum or other.

I forgot to note earlier (re: comments to Debra) that Mr. Keller has
apparently decided that his exigesis is in need of further refinement (after
not-so-secret consultations). He was even overheard using the much
underappreciated phrase "American" in relation to FoMists.

That this innovation/modification of the theory, first proposed by Patrick a
few years ago and seemingly left fallow while its importance grew more
obvious, may finally get the examination it deserves is certainly encouraging.

Further clarification, emendation, or denial of the above is left to DGK.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 157       Wed Feb 08, 1995
G.BLANKENSH2 [Glen B.]       at 01:31 EST

I like "nonotech" as a fortuitous coinage.

(Is there any steampunk besides THE DIFFERENCE ENGINE?  I had heard so many
descriptions of that particular work, and I had spent so much time considering
the possibilities and anticipating their realization, that, by the time I
actually got around to =reading= the thing, I was tremendously disappointed.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 158       Wed Feb 08, 1995
LENNY.BAILES [LennyB]        at 04:19 EST

I think "steampunk" is apt for capturing the flavor of The Diamond Age, which
seems to be Stephenson's version of The Difference Engine  almost as Snow
Crash is his Neuromancer.   Of course, The Diamond Age is set in the future,
but stylistically it spins off the  characterization and anecdotal narrative
that Gibson and Sterling  developed in their collaboration.  Difference Engine
and  Diamond Age are both focused around the impact of an heuristic computing
device on similar repressed cultures.   But The Diamond Age runs out  of
"steam pressure" about half way through and dissipates into some kind  of
diluted Thomas Pynchon paradigm.

The Gibson/Sterling Victorian culture and its implications  seem more
substantial to me than Stephenson's New Atlantis.  (But   the Stephenson
Future America and Metaverse in Snow Crash  have more resonance than Gibson's
earlier, shadowy cyberspace. )

I suppose everyone noticed the throw-away line about Ms. Matheson, the smart
wheels and chiseled spam.


 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 159       Wed Feb 08, 1995
BILL.HIRST [Fluffy Frog]     at 05:22 EST

When you guys start talking about "futuristic neo-Victoriana" and  "post-
Raphaelite pre-modern dictum" I know I'm in way over my head. <g>

BTW, I read "College of Magics" over the weekend, and it was excellent. I'm
not sure if I'll ever be able to pigeonhole books as narrowly as mannerpunk or
steampunk, but so what. Thanks for the recommendation. I enjoyed it, and it
was a book I'd probably never have selected from the cover blurb.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 160       Wed Feb 08, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 06:15 EST

THE DIFFERENCE ENGINE is not the ur (let alone the only) steampunk work.  This
isn't the place, but open a topic on the topic and we can discuss it.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 161       Wed Feb 08, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 07:03 EST

Since I do not know clothing, food, and manners--so never write about them in
any depth--I am not sure I belong in the MP sensibilities closet. I like
reading a lot of the stuff, but hated Dunnet and am not an Austen fan.
(Preferring the Brontes and the wild, wuthering dreech to the parlor.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 162       Wed Feb 08, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 07:33 EST

This may not be the place, but I'll mention anyway that "steampunk" was coined
to refer to certain works by Powers and Blaylock.

I had thought, when I mentioned it to Ken, that it was established (but
perhaps it's not) that FoM is "about" the American response to European class
systems: i.e. the idea that they are negotiable.

(Edit to "one of the things it's 'about.' ")

I sigh with frustration: there does need to be a new essay, but it's a
daunting prospect and I really don't have the time. Arrgh.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 163       Thu Mar 02, 1995
M.ROBINS [Madeleine]         at 00:07 EST

Jane, you comfort me deeply.  I yield to none in my love for Austen, Heyer,
and any number of others mentioned here, and have a vague suspicion that, if I
ever get the time, I will turn out to be vaguely mannwepunkish myself (I have
the credentials, after all).  But I have flung myself repeatedly upon the
works of Dorothy Dunnett, have made it through a couple, but have never found
it anything but arduous.

Doubtless I have sunk myself beyond reproach.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 164       Sat Mar 11, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 22:14 EST

Is taste in literature a moral issue?  I hadn't realized.  Dunnet (and Austen
and Heyer and Crowley and Wolfe) are all very good at what they do.  If you
don't like what they do, you won't like them.  I can't bear Thomas Pyncheon
myself, although I quite see that he does it very well. And I have to be in a
certain sort of mood to read Henry James.  I even acknowledge that Robert E.
Howard wrote the very best sort of the sort of stuff he wrote, but I hate it
from the bottom of my socks, andhave not been able to force myself through
more than a paragraph of it.  So Jane, Madeleine, you remain admirable in my
sight and welcome at my table for dinner, even if you can't stand Ms. Dunnett.
I'm less than enthralled with her more recent books myself.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 165       Sun Mar 12, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 06:42 EST

Well, I re-read LORD OF THE FLIES every once in a while, and abhore the moral
stance of the book. But I read it admiringly, for the sheer writerly
excellence. I can't say, however, that I do that for the mirrorshades stuff or
the horror stuff, no matter how well written a book may be. I admmired, say
PERFUME awfully. But would never put myself through that again.

So on morals, mileage varies. At least for me.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 166       Tue Mar 14, 1995
M.ROBINS [Madeleine]         at 19:34 EST

Delia, you're a comfort.

I wonder if the opposite of not being able to stand a writer you believe to be
in someway admirable (Margaret Atwood springs to mind...her books generally
inspire in me a longing to wax the floor or polish the child) is having books
or writers you love in spite of knowing better.  Sinclair Lewis (at least some
Sinclair Lewis) is one of mine.  His prose frequently makes me want to thump
him, but there's something compelling about his characters and the way he
realizes them...still, I always hope I won't be hit by a car when I have one
of his books in my bag.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 167       Wed Mar 15, 1995
SHERWOOD                     at 09:36 EST

I feel that way about early Patrick Dennis.  I adored the AUNTIE MAME books
when I was a kid, and reading and rereading THE JOYOUS SEASON when my  parents
went through their divorce gave me much-needed laughs.  And I still retain a
fondness for GENIUS.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 168       Wed Mar 15, 1995
E.KUSHNER [Ellen]            at 15:32 EST

Paula Kate, you are a Young Goddess!  Many thanks for posting #615, which
nails several years of enjoyable topic-reading very nicely, thank you!

And I am going to pass on all the nice COLLEGE OF MAGICS (pukey goddam tit
title for which I will never forgive Tor) comments on to Caroline Stevermer ,
where she weaveth night and day over on America OnLine.  I just saw her this
past weekend in Mpls., when I got done with my public radio conferencecec e.
As we have done since college, we read each other drafts of our latest
scribbles, and I warn you all to be prepared to be seriously blown out of  the
water, judging by the opening chapters!  Possess your souls in  patience, but
get those wetsuits ready!

As you might guess, I have just blown through the 120 new postings that have
accrued while I've been off making radio late into the night. Much laughter
aloud, and respects to all.  I wonder if a point should be made about the
_function_ versus _form_ of the Mannerpunk pantheon?  i.e., which of them
counts as an Influence, as opposed to an early example of the form? Or are we
all sick of this line of inquiry?

I'd also like to put in yet another plug for the term "Mannerist" (as  opposed
to "mannered" or "of manners") -- but, then, you know my affinity for composer
Carlo Gesualdo, Mad Prince of Venosa.

SO, DON'T BE A FOOL, PLAY IT COOL, COME TO DELIA & ELLEN'S READING AT NYC'S
PREMIERE SF LIVE SERIES (**GIRLS!!**GIRLS!!**GIRLS!!**) AT DIXON PLACE ON
THURSDAY MARCH 16TH 258 BOWERY DOORS OPEN AT 7:30 AND PREPARE TO BE
ENLIGHTENED, ENTERTAINED, EMPOWERED AFULLY EXECUTED!!!!

dear me.  what shall I wear?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 169       Wed Mar 15, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 21:48 EST

Clothes. Funky hat optional.

And keep in mind that the apres-fete is likely to be in the same location...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 170       Wed Mar 15, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:03 EST

Ellen, we =never= tire of this line of enquiry.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 171       Thu Mar 16, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 01:10 EST

What Paula Said. (We just never define or delineate it quite well enough.)

Come to think of it, change "We just never" to "It just never" and singularise
the verbs of the parenthetic.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 172       Thu Mar 16, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 07:47 EST

The difference between "influence" and "early example of" seems to me to be
largely semantic.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 173       Thu Mar 16, 1995
STEVEN.BRUST [Sempai]        at 19:44 EST

Ken, a funcky hat is never merely "optional."

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 174       Thu Mar 16, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 21:34 EST

"Important" and "influential" are not synonyms, and a work can easily be
either without being the other.  Hopkins was an important poet, but he was
hardly influential until long after his death.  As for influence without
importance, pick your poison.  Thus I think the difference between "influence"
and "early example of" is also more than semantic.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 175       Fri Mar 17, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 06:34 EST

Let's take a concrete example. Moorcock's Elric stories are a secondary
influence on fantasy of manners; they influenced M. John Harrison, who is an
acknowledged (by some) primary influence. But what about =Gloriana=? Influence
or early example? When I first read Ellen Kushner's "The Unicorn Masque" in
the first =Elsewhere=, the first thing it brought to mind was =Gloriana=,
despite the presence =in that same volume= of an Elric story and an M. John
Harrison Viriconium story.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 176       Fri Mar 17, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 13:49 EST

OK, I think you're agreeing with me.  Harrison is more an influence than an
example; Gloriana is more an example than an influence.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 177       Sat Mar 18, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 09:41 EST

But is that actually the case? I was shooting for grey area there; Moorcock
and Harrison, as literary cultures go, belong to one group; Kushner and
Windling belong to another. (Moorcock, that is, is not a "fantasist of
manners," if that's a label anyone's comfortable sticking on.) Just to make
even more trouble, couldn't SWORDSPOINT itself be regarded as a (an)
influence, since it came first and everyone who writes "that stuff" has read
it?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 178       Sat Mar 18, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 11:17 EST

Did =everyone= who writes "that stuff" read _Swordspoint_ because it
influenced them, or did they read it because it was where they were going
already?

I'd certainly not argue that it isn't a seminal example, but as an influence
one would have to be able to argue that people who weren't already going in
that direction read it and said, "Yes, this is what I want to write in my
life!" (or something slightly less melodramatic)

Tolkien is an influence on Brooks (or Brooks is an influence on the ill-
monickered Goodkind). _Swordspoint_ is, at this point, better argued as an
inspiration than an Influence.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 179       Sat Mar 18, 1995
S.THOMPSON8 [Sarah]          at 13:05 EST

Maybe the subject of this topic, whatever you want to call it, ought to be
defined more in social terms than literary ones.  It's a bunch of people who
all know each other and write the same kind of thing.  Other people may also
have written similar stuff-- Moorcock for example-- but they're not part of
the group we're really talking about.

Can we say that =Swordspoint= is the =Neuromancer= of, er, It?

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 180       Sat Mar 18, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 18:37 EST

There's certainly cross-influence between related literary cultures; I don't
see why two authors from one literary culture couldn't have two different
types of relationships to the authors in another literary culture.  And of
course SWORDSPOINT can be an influence.  A can be an influence on B; A and B
together can be an influence on C; while D is influenced by A and C but not B,
and E is influenced by B and C but not A.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 181       Sun Mar 19, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 11:38 EST

Sarah: Nice line. Yes, SWORDSPOINT is the NEUROMANCER of FoM. I have heard
more than one person say that SWORDSPOINT was the book they wanted to write.

Making even more trouble, what's the difference between "inspiration" and
"influence"?

Ken, can you rephrase your first question? It seems garbled.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 182       Sun Mar 19, 1995
D.BRATMAN [David B.]         at 14:11 EST

An influence, I would have thought, resembles the work it is influencing to
some degree; an inspiration need not.  Inspiration is possible across media;
influence generally is not (though there are exceptions, e.g. Debussy and the
Impressionist painters).
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 183       Sun Mar 19, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 21:11 EST

Sarah>  That's it exactly.  It's more a question of what's going on in the
air, the zeitgeist (if that's what I mean) than of deciding to write another
one just like this one we like so much here.  I think it does a disservice to
people like Caroline and Emma and Steve, who write very much what they want to
write, inspired and influenced, as all writers are, by things they like and
admire.  What it seems to me that you're talking about in the case of writers
like Brooks is neither inspiration nor influence, but trying to reproduce
another writer's world, which is copying.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 184       Tue Mar 28, 1995
N.BARDSLEY [Nathan]          at 21:42 EST

It's done!  I've uploaded Don's essay "The Manner of Fantasy" to the SFRT1
library.  The ASCII text version is file #9209 (mannerof.txt), the zipped
version is file #9289 (mannerof.zip).  I expect the sysops will have the file
cleared in the next few days.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 185       Wed Mar 29, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 20:38 EST

Thanks loads for that, Nathan. We all owe you. (And also due to Nathan's
efforts, there's a version linked to my World Wide Web page, or did I say this
already?)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 186       Thu Mar 30, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 00:04 EST

You did, but not here.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 187       Tue Apr 18, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 20:17 EDT

I saw "Jefferson in Paris" last night.  A problematical film, not only because
Nick Nolte was so restrained as Jefferson that he came across as being
downright autistic.  What makes me mention it here is that it made me want to
send Merchant, Ivory a copy of Porcelain Dove with a note saying that they
already had all the costumes and props they needed, so why not take a flyer?
A low-budget big-budget film.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 188       Wed Apr 19, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 06:55 EDT

DO it! It will cost you all of $15 totasl, book and mailing!
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 189       Wed Apr 26, 1995
M.ROBINS [Madeleine]         at 01:10 EDT

Delia, what an heroically good idea!  This, I think, is what is known as
creative self-promotion!
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 190       Tue May 02, 1995
BROOK.WEST [Brook]           at 20:48 EDT

500 messages from this topic have left in search of the ultimate mannerpunk
novel. They've promised to stop by the library as file #9438.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 191       Tue May 02, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 22:56 EDT

Watching the generally girlish BUFFALO GIRLS, it struck me that I really want
someone to write a swashbuckler for Angelica Huston.  Does anyone know if she
can fence?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 192       Wed May 03, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 00:14 EDT

Never actually stole anything worth having her try it...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 193       Wed May 03, 1995
SF-MARTY                     at 11:48 EDT

= *********************************
 Number: 9438  Name: MANNER16.TXT
 Address: BROOK.WEST                Date: 950502
 Approximate # of bytes: 273736
 Number of Accesses: 2  Library: 25
 Description:
 500 messages from Mannerpunk (cat 4 top 4) from Nov 93 to Dec 94.Oz
 books--Ruth Plumley Thompson vs Baum; is it possible for a writer or
 poet to retire? =Age of Innocence= reviewed; =The Wild, Wild West=;
 =Pride and Extreme Prejudice= with "Dirty" Harriet; Anglophilia and
 fantasy; Elfpunk; books that ignore the darker sides of England and
 America; characterization by inventorying bookshelves; is BONE DANCE
 Anglophilic? Manipulating the reader; subtext; Steampunk &
 Clockworkpunk; THE SECRET SERVICE; cheat endings; & more.
 Keywords:
 Mannerpunk,fantasy,Anglophilia,Elfpunk,Steampunk,Clockworkpunk,bookshelves

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 194       Tue May 09, 1995
D.SHERMAN9 [Delia]           at 20:08 EDT

How fascinating we sound.

Isn't Angelica Houston in some kind of Calamity Jane picture, or am I
hallucinating?  I think I saw a review.  I'm with you in wanting to see her
buckle a swash--she's very good at sending mixed (and charming) gender sig
signals.

I've been reading a kind of Gothic SF of Manners book called __Space
RRelations__.  The protagonist is a poet, a diplomat, a slave, and a hero. The
tone is urbane, literate, and very mannered.  Half the time the author --one
Donald Barr--writes the thing as if it were a play, with character names
followed by :s at the beginning of each speech.  You'd think this would be
annoying, but I ceased to notice it very quickly.  It's rather charming, and
I'd suspect it's been out of print since not long after it was published in
1973.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 195       Tue May 09, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:00 EDT

Delia, the "Calamity Jane" thing was BUFFALO GIRLS, which was on TV (CBS) in
two parts a couple of weeks ago.  It's worth watching while sorting laundry or
stringing beads, but it isn't very good.

I adore Angelica Huston, though.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 196       Wed May 10, 1995
J.YOLEN [Jane]               at 07:11 EDT

Very dirty laundry. Very short beads.

I watched some of it from a hotel room. Being tired and cranky. It didn't
help.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 197       Wed May 10, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 08:53 EDT

John Clute reviewed =Space Relations= when it came out. The review is in
=Strokes=, the book of his I published. I'll have to go look at the review
again; I seem to remember that he did have some positive words for it.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 198       Mon May 29, 1995
LARRY.HAMMER [Wombatty]      at 15:46 EDT

Is there any good, urbane novels out there getting upublished, say, this year?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 199       Mon May 29, 1995
N.BARDSLEY [Nathan]          at 22:42 EDT

Elizabeth Willey's =A Sorcerer and a Gentleman=, an August book.  It's a
prequel to =A Well Favored Man,= and a remarkably better book.  I should
probably write a little something up, but anyone who's reading this topic will
want to read it.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 200       Tue May 30, 1995
PNH [Patrick]                at 07:46 EDT

I have been telling people that, promising though THE WELL-FAVORED MAN was, A
SORCERER AND A GENTLEMAN represents a real leap.  Check it out.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 201       Tue May 30, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:12 EDT

I read the opening chapter on Elizabeth's home page, and chortled out loud.
Good stuff.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 202       Mon Jun 05, 1995
N.BARDSLEY [Nathan]          at 19:17 EDT

Greg Bear's fantasy, originally published as =The Serpent Mage= and =The
Infinity Concerto= have been (finally!) republished by Tor in a single volume
called =Songs of Earth and Power= or something very close.  I don't know if it
could be called mp, but it's awfully good.

In a followup to Larry's question, have there been any worthwhile fantasys
that have been marketed as yet-another-one-of-those-fantasys?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 203       Mon Jun 05, 1995
LARRY.HAMMER [Wombatty]      at 20:25 EDT

<raised eyebrow>

I don't think it's mannerpunk, although I can see the affinities.  Certainly
it's good, and worth the effort of mentioning -- indeed, I believe it is time
again to reread them.

(Ow -- I can just tell I've been writing the queen of Elfland.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 204       Mon Jun 05, 1995
PNH [Patrick]                at 21:54 EDT

SONGS OF EARTH AND POWER is very close.  In fact, I almost believe it is the
title exactly.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 205       Mon Jun 05, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 22:18 EDT

Uh, Nathan, Patrick's too polite to ask something like this but: Is it that
Tor "finally" published it or that you "finally" saw a copy?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 206       Mon Jun 05, 1995
PNH [Patrick]                at 22:36 EDT

Tor published it, what, a bit over a year after Tor acquired it.  This doesn't
seem like an undue delay, particularly for an old book.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 207       Tue Jun 06, 1995
N.BARDSLEY [Nathan]          at 06:22 EDT

Finally it is back in print.  Maybe it's just me, but the Berkeley editions
are rather hard to find, even used.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 208       Tue Jun 06, 1995
PNH [Patrick]                at 06:25 EDT

Well indeed.  That's because they're out of print.  Thus reverting the rights
to Greg so he could sell them to us...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 209       Tue Jun 06, 1995
LARRY.HAMMER [Wombatty]      at 10:30 EDT

How extensive were Bear's revisions for the combined volume, anyway?
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 210       Tue Jun 06, 1995
PNH [Patrick]                at 11:07 EDT

Toothbrushings.  Little consistency bits.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 211       Tue Jun 06, 1995
PNH [Patrick]                at 11:07 EDT

(Also, he got rid of some no-longer-necessary recapitulations in Volume 2.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 212       Tue Jun 06, 1995
LARRY.HAMMER [Wombatty]      at 20:33 EDT

Ah.  Thanks.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 213       Mon Aug 28, 1995
M.ROBINS [Madeleine]         at 21:44 EDT

I return after an undue absence to discover that I am not the only person who
has read SPACE RELATIONS, which I discovered in its original printing
(slightly before the Flood, if memory serves) and liked a lot. It makes me
laugh out loud.  I really should trawl through this category more often...

I believe, though I may be wrong in this, that Donald Barr was, in addition to
writing two science fiction novels, the headmaster of one of Manhattan's more
selective private high schools.  Shows what one can do when not corrupting the
minds of youth.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 214       Mon Aug 28, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 22:22 EDT

I've been meaning to drop in here and suggest (to anyone who hasn't already
read it) that Elizabeth Willey's A SORCERER AND A GENTLEMAN may be the
ulitmate FoM novel; certainly the central theme is whether one =can= be both a
sorcerer and a gentleman ... if that isn't FoM I'm not sure what is.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 215       Tue Aug 29, 1995
E.WILLEY                     at 20:31 EDT

I'm pretty sure it isn't FoM, myself...


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 216       Tue Aug 29, 1995
E.WILLEY                     at 20:48 EDT

(Not to dissuade people from reading the book, of course, but be aware that it
contains no gender-bending, boosts aristocracy undemocratically, is not a
cross-genre work being wholly a work of genre fantasy, is not a cross-dressing
work (two women characters' masculine costumes are easily penetrated), deals
with the conventional novelistic issue of the integration of the individual
into society in a conventional way, and contains no talking animals.)

On the other hand it is well-written, contains amusing digressions, and picks
up amazingly after the first hundred or so pages.

If I do say so myself.


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 217       Tue Aug 29, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 23:23 EDT

Hmmmm ....
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 218       Sat Sep 09, 1995
E.WILLEY                     at 19:29 EDT

I've been rummaging through the archives of this topic and my back issues of
the NYRoSF, collecting bits of stuff about whatever it is we're talking about
here.  To my great surprise, I found that the NYRoSF printed only one letter
in response to Don Keller's article, several issues after the article
appeared: the letter's from Delia Sherman.

Clearly there was face-to-face discussion of the article in various places
(like cons), but is it so that nothing was documented until the GEnie topic
was started?  (This is why it would be nice if at least the more substantial
con panels had proceedings published somewhere.)  I am surprised.

A fan overseas who can't get GEnie has been asking about Don's article, and
I'd really like to just send her---or better yet make available to everyone
interested, all nineteen of them (more as they tell their friends) around the
world, the first few weeks/two months of this topic.  The discussion was very
good, and it seems a shame to leave it stuffed away in a GEnie archive where
no one will ever see it.  Making it available more widely, furthermore, would
invigorate the discussion and perhaps improve it.

So do I have to get permission from _every poster_ in that period to relay
their postings (put into a forum which is public) elsewhere?  What exactly is
the policy on carrying on GEnie discussions---outside GEnie?


Elizabeth Willey
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 219       Mon Sep 11, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 06:56 EDT

You've certainly got my permission. One of these days I'm going to write a new
piece on the subject, and that archive is going to be an important place to
brush up.

It's true, we didn't get many letters.

There =is= a tape of a Fourth Street panel on the subject, by the way.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 220       Mon Sep 11, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 18:52 EDT

I'm not certain what the policy official is (or who the policy official is,
even), but I doubt anyone could legitimately object if you sent an UNEDITED--
warts and all--copy, since anyone w/GEnie access could d/l such a file.

All copyrights apply, of course, so your friend would have to ask again,
individually, if s/he wanted to =publish= any part of the discussion.

(Warts and all basically means you have to include my posts and GregF's posts
and all the rest along with the Deep Profundities.)
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 221       Mon Sep 11, 1995
G.FEELEY1 [Greg]             at 20:42 EDT

Ken's are the warts; mine are the "and all."
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 222       Mon Sep 11, 1995
S.THOMPSON8 [Sarah]          at 20:43 EDT

Could you maybe summarize what was said on that tape, Don?

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 223       Mon Sep 11, 1995
K.HOUGHTON [Ken]             at 22:58 EDT

#221 is true, for Greg is large and contains multitudes...
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 224       Tue Sep 12, 1995
DGK [[Don Keller]]           at 04:51 EDT

Sorry, not really; I haven't listened to it in literally years. And won't be
able to for a while. As I remember, it was a panel with Emma Bull and Delia
Sherman and maybe Teresa. I wasn't there.
 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 225       Sat Sep 16, 1995
P.MARMOR [Paula Kate]        at 13:25 EDT

Elizabeth - my understanding of the policy on the archives is that GEnie holds
a compilation copyright.  You may print out any archive and share it with your
friends (or share an electronic copy) =provided= you retain the GEnie
copyright info and the "how to sign up on GEnie" that appear at the top of
each archive.

 ------------
Category 4,  Topic 4
Message 226       Sat Sep 16, 1995
E.WILLEY                     at 18:14 EDT

Thank you, Paula Kate!
 ------------

                              *** 
 - end of file - 
