I date this line to the sixties, though I went hunting for examples to cite to explain why and all the ones I’ve seen have melted into some soup to which I take objection but for which it’s hard to find specific citations. (This situation is, as will emerge, perhaps ironically appropriate.)3 My gut feeling is that this line starts is when the “New Wave”4 starts to leak over from England, which is also when people begin drawing distinctions between the way genre fiction evolved in England versus America. That is, their claim (and I think also the reality) is that science fiction and fantasy never divided from the rest of publishing in England the way they did in America. Therefore it has always been more respected, more mature, and so on.5

Promotional patter is as promotional patter does.6 There are many science fiction anthologies in the sixties and seventies with the stated purpose of rejuvenating the genre from stale cliche (Orbit, Dangerous Visions, New Dimensions, The Alien Condition, etc), and at times it feels as if each had to pretend the others simply did not exist to get their blurbs done. But that’s marketing, not a sworn statement in court. And as somebody who is fond of the show Neon Genesis Evangelion, I am furthermore very familiar with the belief that “anime is tentacle porn” that has to be refined into “no, anime is busty women in inch long skirts reminding you of your mom.”

But for me, this specific line of patter raises an odd question, which is—

What are these people actually talking about? Because they are talking about something. And yet if you ask yourself what… well, it’s not so clear.

Before we go any further: is there any reason for me to care about this?

No.

OK, come on. You know what they’re talking about.

I feel like I do! It feels true that science fiction used to be about shooting aliens and saving girls. But to go back to anime for a moment, the “tentacle porn” aspect of anime is real. There are specific examples that created that reputation. In the world of jobs I do not personally desire, “hentai historian” probably ranks in the top twenty—it would be more desirable than “janitor at a CIA black site”—but you could be one if you wanted. When it comes to science fiction, on the other hand, these kinds of generalizations are rarely accompanied by a specific memory.

“Golden Age” science fiction was, sure, often shallow and / or sexist—as was science fiction afterward—but was it shallow and / or sexist in this specific way? I haven’t read the Foundation books in mumble mumble years but I don’t think anybody would call Asimov’s work full of babes. If I were asked to make a list of negative qualities I associate with Golden Age science fiction, I’d probably pick “dryness” or “overreliance on explanation.” I would not come up with “overabundance of sex.”

To pick two infamous examples: something like Lester del Rey’s 1938 story “Helen O’Loy”—in which two guys build the ideal robot girlfriend and there is no twist because she really is the ideal robot girlfriend whose only flaw is being too perfect—is sexist in the sense that it presents human women as a technological problem that will eventually be solved. One day the annoying demanding woman who nags you about settling down will be replaced by the patient and infinitely accommodating robot woman who never even ages… though she will pretend she does, for your sake. And Tom Godwin’s “The Cold Equations” (1954) is sexist because it is an experiment designed to figure out an instance where it would be acceptable to eject a girl into the vacuum of space for the crime of being a little dumb and annoying.7

What characterizes both of these stories is hostility to women’s presence in male spaces—which are, in these stories, all spaces, since even the domestic sphere will one day be taken over by perfect robot girlfriends. It’s just that these are stories of machine-building nerds, not square-jawed jocks. After all, classic science fiction was for (and sometimes by) machine-building nerds. Why would their wish fulfillment involve being tough and strong, rather than winning the day through being clever?

Moving on. When I run into this sort of phrasing, it’s often accompanied by lines like you could see this illustrated on practically every magazine cover.

Could you?

The magazine covers.

Here is a randomly selected cover of Astounding from 1934.

There is a hero with a strong jawline preparing to shoot an alien, I’ll admit it. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s exactly what we’ve been promised. Maybe 1934 is too far back. Maybe one issue is too restrictive. Maybe one magazine is too restrictive.… So here are five sets of magazines covers starting from the arbitrary date “January 1954.” Of these magazines, Future is the closest to what I’m envisioning when I read this kind of promo. There are lots of babes on those covers.

Lest I seem disingenuous, I’m certainly aware of Margaret Brundage’s sexy Weird Tales covers and of Frank Frazetta’s sexy paperback Conan covers and the whole slew of sexy covers that accompany the rise of the mass market paperback. I want to put Brundage aside for the moment, though. If every cover were a Brundage cover, I don’t think there would be any question what people meant by these statements. Brundage, however, was one cover artist for one magazine.

With Frazetta, on the other hand, his moment really started in the sixties; that’s when he starts doing the Conan covers. His rise is contemporaneous with this particular strain of “science fiction used to be for horny, bloodthirsty babies.” Similarly, the explosion of the science fiction paperback market goes hand in hand with the more experimental works that start to appear in the sixties. So one answer for what are people talking about when they say that science fiction used to have… but now… is that they are really discussing their present. Frazetta feels like a throwback. What is at stake in these claims about science fiction’s past is really its present and its future.

If we agree that a lot of “old” science fiction was bad, does it really matter how it was bad?

It does… to me.

For one thing, I am wary of relying on these types of cultural shorthands, because what often happens is people are quoting and riffing on each other. So sometimes I’ll run into truly ludicrous claims along the lines of “there wasn’t any ‘good’ science fiction until the eighties,” and I can tell that this is because of inherited narratives about when science fiction “got good” that have been updated slightly.8

But also, the misconception that this particular type of promotional package is meant to correct is a real misconception, not something invented for promotional purposes. This line is not like when somebody has to pretend that a well-known author is being rediscovered for a marketing hook. The more mainstream world of fiction, commentary, academia, etc, with which they are dealing does really think that a muscle-bound hero shooting aliens is “science fiction.” Which is why you also can’t really say “oh those mainstream people, they’re all thinking of this specific book by this Golden Age writer. They’re all thinking of A.E. van Vogt or Doc Smith or Edmond Hamilton or Leigh Brackett.” They are not thinking that. They don’t know who those people are. They have an impression that is not actually formed by reading anything.

I should also say that this way of talking about the benighted past does not only exist when people are trying to sell their work as an innovation; you can find it as a form of affectionate (or, sometimes, embittered) nostalgia, too.9 Everybody remembers the age of the bug-eyed aliens. But when you start looking for it you are forced to consider that it either they happened much further back than you think—well before the “Golden Age” of science fiction—or that, possibly, it didn’t happen at all.

And then there is a secret third option.

So what’s the answer?

The answer is movies. To a lesser extent, television. Maybe also comic books. But mostly, it’s movies. Movies! Always at the scene of the crime.…

One thing I realized reading some very old fan writing is the degree to which movies and television were marginal and embarrassing within fandom—more or less from the jump—while also basically representing science fiction, along with the magazine covers, to everybody who wasn’t really following it.

Anyway, thank you for coming along. I feel sure I’m going to get at least three corrections to this post as soon as I send it out. But that’s okay. That’s why we blog.

Subscribe now

Opening lines. I was thinking about them because my next column for The Point will be about Vonda McIntyre’s “Aztecs” (1977) which has one of my favorite switch-ups:

She gave up her heart quite willingly.

After the operation.…

But also, as I’ve mentioned before (here), Joanna Russ’s sig…

Read more

I’d like to say, in response to Darrell Schweitzer’s plea to the “older famous writers in the field” to set an example, that I have never allowed and will never allow the franchising of my works/worlds/characters/universes, or the use of any of the above in any kind of electronic or other game; and that I don’t do readings or any kind of PR appearance at Borders or the other commoditybook chains. For anybody who gets decent advances, and so has the luxury of such choices, this seems to me a minimal commitment to literary values and writerly solidarity.1

Now… the specifics of what Le Guin won’t do are not …

Read more

Strange at Ecbatan

The Good Stuff: 2025

Just for kicks, here are my Hugo nominees for works published in 2025. I’ll note in advance that while until about 2022, I could consider myself plausibly an authority on the best short science fiction and fantasy published each year, thanks to my position as a short fiction review for…

Read more

4 months ago · 7 likes · Rich Horton

Also, I don’t have enough to say about this for a capsule review, but I finished Suzy McKee Charnas’s The Vampire Tapestry recently and find myself surprised nobody has adapted it for the screen. There’s a whole story about a vampire going to therapy in there! What gives? (There is a play.)

Read more

At The Point, my third essay talking about “genre” short stories is out. (Previously: C.L. Moore, Fritz Leiber.) This time it’s “Mother of Cloth, Heart of Clock,” by Craig Strete, a story written from the perspective of a doomed lab animal:

The most widespread and ancient relationship between humans and the other animals, though, is the rejection of identification. The animal is no longer our neighbor in a shared world but a substance: meat to eat, skin to wear—and, more recently, a tool for scientific investigation. We may ask ourselves how the animals feel about it, or try to minimize their suffering, but our knowledge that they aren’t fans and would prefer not to be treated this way doesn’t really affect our decision to continue experimenting on them. It’s not as if we think they’re enjoying themselves. We’re animals too, after all, and we can tell. As the narrator of Craig Strete’s story “Mother of Cloth, Heart of Clock” comments: “I care about them going to kill me. Wouldn’t anyon…

Read more

I find it’s hard to talk frankly about writing the book, as in, the actual writing, because when I imagine writing “what I want to achieve is this, and what I don’t want is that,” I also imagine somebody bookmarking it to quote in a future review. (“On her Substack, McClay feverishly documented minute details of her process and expressed exalted goals for her work; admirable goals, certainly, but not in evidence.…”)

Something I do a lot is use techniques from “outside” of writing to think about what I’m trying to do with writing:1 vocal layering, pastry baking, supersaturation, ballet…. The vocal layering comparison, in particular, has been useful when I work because I find that I do lay a “base” and then keep editing details over it. (“McClay has repeatedly used the comparison of vocal layering and indeed that comparison is instructive when it comes to the book’s failures.”)2 When I edit somebody else, or myself, I talk about tempo a lot. Mary McCarthy has a line about Elizabeth Hardwick somewhere to the effect of “her essays have plots,” and that’s another mental touchstone for me, though that one is in fact about writing.

The other reason not to talk about the writing process is just that the manuscript is not even close to done… it’s not even close to a third done! I could realize this approach is a bad idea and then do something else. Still, this stuff is what I’ve been thinking about. And “stuff I’ve been thinking about” is the one and only topic of this newsletter. So.… But please don’t take what follows as my definitive statement on writing biography, a thing I have not actually done at this point in time, just how I’m currently approaching it (an approach which may eventually be subject to change).

I’m going to paywall the rest of this because it’s a little ~vulnerable~ but as usual if you are a regular reader who cannot afford to subscribe you can email me at barbara dot mcclay at gmail and I’ll comp you for a month so you can read.

Read more

This book popped up in a letter I read here in Oregon—basically somebody wondering if anybody else had read this book and saying it felt like a combination of Joanna Russ and Ursula K. Le Guin.1 So, well. I felt I had a duty. If somebody said that about a book now I’d write it off as hyperbole. This mention felt a little different. Now that I’ve read it, if I were trying to do a “it’s X meets Y” pitch for Floating Worlds, I would say: “It’s The Dispossessed meets Dune.”2

Before I actually discuss the book, though, I do want to say… sometimes a post about a forgotten book will have an air of “why did we all forget about this,” a push for revival, and so on. Why people forgot about Floating Worlds is actually very easy to answer: Holland only wrote one sci-fi book. Her publisher withdrew the hardcover from the Nebula nominations for unclear reasons,3 and when they resubmitted the paperback the book had lost its momentum. Also, the book is not revivabl…

Read more

This collection contains some standout stories from my beloved girls, and yet, it is much worse than Dangerous Visions. Part of the reason is that there is, I regret to say, a real eau de male backlash about many of these stories.1 To stroll through a few examples: A woman offers herself to be fucked to death (?) as atonement for the sins of humankind. A guy gets stuck on a raft with a female reporter who is a simpering coward who can barely talk. Kurt Vonnegut fantasizes about sending a rocket full of freeze-dried sperm to space. A man hooks up with a woman; the fade-to-black here goes: “Those endless legs closed, on him, all urge, going like the legs of the napalmed.”2 That one is part of a diptych and its counterpart is about a guy who refuses to sleep with a woman younger than himself because he’ll find it emasculating to have a muse.3 Then we have the entry by Piers Anthony, which is about an alternate Earth where women are used as…

Read more

In his anthology “Dangerous Visions,” Harlan Ellison wrote that the award-winning Emshwiller (1921-2019) was “the first writer I ever encountered who said she wrote to please herself whom I believed.” In the same piece, he quotes her as saying, “I like interesting failures better than works where the artist always knows exactly what he’s doing.” As Ellison is quick to say, the story in question (“Sex and/or Mr. Morrison”) is not a failure, but part of what makes Emshwiller’s work both compelling and frustrating is the way that it seems to operate by a hidden, different set of rules about what it means to succeed or fail. You can respond to Emshwiller’s work by throwing it across the room, but you can’t suggest it might have benefited from being written in another way. These stories must be accepted or rejected in some total sense.

Read it here.

One thing about most good writers is that the comment “they aren’t like anything else” is not one hundred percent true. They have resemblances to their peers (who are not always their contemporaries). Sometimes, however, you read a writer where this is really, really true. Carol Emshwiller is not like anything else.

I recently acquired a little book of Tiptree’s poetry and was surprised and a little moved to find a (not very good but still) poem, “S.O.S. Found in an SF Bottle,” about other women in science fiction that includes this passage:

Salve: Joanna of the rocks; Ursula of the waters; Kate burning,
   burning;
Salve: Fierce
   Vonda; Quinn indomitable; desperate Suzy; wild Kit; Carol-
almost-beyond-humaness; dead Shirley.…

This litany being Joanna Russ, Ursula K. Le Guin, Kate Wilhelm, Vonda McIntyre, Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, Suzy McKee Charnas, Kit Reed, Carol Emshwiller, and (I assume?) Shirley Jackson.2

If you want to read Emshwiller, Moon Songs is a good place to start, but I also have to recommend her novels Carmen Dog and The Mount. (Her novels might actually be easier places to start than her short stories, because while they are short for novels, she can’t do the same kind of highly compressed weirdness that she can achieve in a short space.) And if you want to get all of Carol Emshwiller’s short stories in one go, there’s a two volume set from Nonstop Books that is easiest to get if purchased directly from them. Personally, I would (1) buy Moon Songs and the novel of your choice (2) lend Moon Songs to your friend (3) buy the two volume set when your friend keeps it. You can work a novel into the process as the spirit moves you.

Read more

Back in June—remember June? I sure don’t—I mentioned discovering a review calling Ursula K. Le Guin’s Norton Book of Science Fiction: North American Science Fiction, 1960–1990 “a masterpiece of totalitarian propaganda.” This reaction was intriguingly over-the-top. But the review, published in the British zine Foundation, took a bit of effort to track down. Eventually I found the right copy of Foundation for sale in New Zealand and after the now usual nail-biting about tarrifs, it got through. So here’s a little bit about it. What follows is probably going to be quite niche even for people interested in this subject. Given that it is going to mostly be talking about a review that’s not online of a book that’s out of print, I’ve done my best to keep it comprehensible.

Some notes before we get into it, though. First, Slusser mentions at the beginning of the review that he unsuccessfully pitched a Norton Anthology of science fiction four years be…

Read more

Double Star (Robert Heinlein, 1956)

Bookshop links are affiliate links.

There’s a Tumblr post that lives on in my memory, but which I can never find when I look for it, where somebody sarcastically describes a certain tendency as people saying, basically, “normalize being normal.” In other words, you know, you feel a bit defensive about doing something “normal” and you make that other people’s problem.

“Normalize being normal” is also beginning to describe my mental relationship to Robert Heinlein, in the sense that he is this enormously popular and beloved writer who I nonetheless feel a bit dangerous for liking to read. I act about Heinlein like somebody who has discovered black lipstick exists: Oh, is this too much for you? Is this too much edge, mom?1

Read more

Bookshop links are affiliate links. Also, standard disclaimer that I’m not going to be logged on much today!

The Best of Nancy Kress (Nancy Kress, 2015)

The first story in this collection, “And Wild For to Hold,” was so good I immediately paused any further reading to go text friends about it. One said (paraphrased), “Nancy Kress is talented, but sort of evil.” Further discussion made it clear my friend was talking about the novel Beggars in Spain, and the original novella of that story is the final piece in this volume, so as I continued to read The Best of Nancy Kress I felt what I can only call a sense of Doom every moment I got closer to “Beggars in Spain.”

But to return for a moment to “And Wild For to Hold”—this story is about an organization which extracts people from the past they’ve deemed crucial pivot points in history. By removing these people, they avert war and bloodshed. These “holy hostages” include Helen of Troy, Adolph Hitler, the Tsarevich, and, now, Anne Boleyn. But A…

Read more

The Story Until Now (Kit Reed, 2013)

Bookshop links are affiliate links the government makes me put this in every time I still haven’t actually set up any way to get the money out of my affiliate account because frankly there’s like $18 in there. I don’t blame you however I always look for cheaper options too we’re all broke here at BDM Industries and its Allies.

A true fact about 60s and 70s women’s science fiction is that there is really too much to write about. Every time I pick up something to read as background I’m confronted by some wonderful weirdo that feels as if she surely deserves a book of her own. On the other hand, it strikes me as prudent not to write too much about the authors who will be focuses of the book on here. So the abundance of weirdos is a blessing: there is lots to write about even if I avoid directly touching on my main girls very often.

Carol Emshwiller is one of these writers who doesn’t feature as a main player but deserves to; however, I plan to review her forthcoming selected short stories, Moon Songs, so we’ll put a pin in her1 for now. Another one, a recent discovery, is Josephine Saxton, who is British and thus ineligible for inclusion in the book anyway, but her novella The Travails of Jane Saint is a very funny trip through dreamworld2 that involves a courageous dachshund named Merleau-Ponty.3

But the one I want to talk about in this post is Kit Reed. Reed published her first story, “The Wait,” in 1958, and she published her last story the year she died, in 2017. In between she published, if not literally countless stories, at least more stories than I want to count.4 Also, I am going to experiment here with a new post format, in which there is a complete “capsule review” as it were of The Story Until Now, then a paywall, behind which will lie some discussion of a specific Kit Reed story, “Songs of War,” her version of a “battle of the sexes” story. As I say, this is an experiment.

I mentioned Emshwiller and Saxton earlier because Emshwiller, Saxton, and Reed all feel like they fit into a lineage whose most prominent figure these days is Kelly Link.5 They tell stories that project a strong feeling of normality but the gap between what the story presents as “normal” or the narrator considers “normal” and what we do is not only massive but unpredictable; it seems essential to the ways these stories work (at least as a body of work) that every once in a while what is common sense in story world is the same as what is common sense in our own.

To this technique, Kit Reed often adds a twist of her own: stories about people who are abruptly switching from one “normal world” with one set of priorities to a different “normal world” with a different set of priorities. In “What Wolves Know,” a boy who has been raised by wolves is returned to the bosom of his ambiguously loving family (“the wolves aren’t Happy’s real parents. In a way this is news to him, but from the beginning he had suspicions”). Which world deserves one’s allegiance? Which set of values should you try to maintain? Is choosing between them even possible?

In another story, an inverted version of “The Metamorphosis,” Joseph Bug, a cockroach, awakes to discover he’s turned into a human being. Rejected by his old friends, he begins to smash them: “I had for the first time power, and as I thought on the injuries the others had done me, this new power tasted sweet.” Glorying in his newfound superiority over his onetime peers, he proclaims to the other cockroaches: “Now I understand. The lesser will always hate the great.” In the end, however, Joseph Bug doesn’t fare much better than Gregor Samsa.

That both of these worlds are often crazy is part of the charm. Mismatched but equally bizarre normalities are used to great comic effect in “High Rise High,” where a city has put all of the teenagers in a giant impregnable high-rise fortress, only for the teenagers to revolt and take over. Agent Betsy, who is actually thirty-five but who can pass for a teen, is sent in to infiltrate the guerilla leadership. In her teenage persona as “Trinket” she instantly gets swept up in the emotional high school world she never got to have as a real teenager:

Onstage with Johnny, cute, popular little Trinket is so caught up in the moment that she forgets who she used to be. The crowd roars and that stringy, unhappy, capable person whose dad died in the line of duty which is why she’s such a good cop fades away. She fingers the silver Scrunchy Johnny put on her wrist excitedly because she’s about to get everything she wants! In her life outside HRH, Betsy Gallaher went to her high school junior prom alone and her senior prom with a blind date who threw up on her feet, and no matter how smart a woman is, or how accomplished, no matter how smart you are, hurts incurred in high school never go away; they just go on hurting. Well, life’s unexpectedly turned around for her. Trinket is going to the Tinsel Prom at HRH with the hottest boy in the entire school.

Now, as Agent Betsy, our heroine not only knows the situation in HRH needs to be shut down but that the town (however improbably) has a nuclear arsenal and is going to nuke the high school if she can’t fix things. But as Trinket…? In fact, though, while the situation in “High Rise High” is ultimately resolved without nuking the school, Agent Betsy / Trinket herself has little to do with it.

With Sayaka Murata we talked a bit about normalcy—Normalness Studies?—and I think one thing you find in these Kit Reed stories is a similar interest in the way there is something a bit unnerving about the plastic nature of the normal. People have the wrong priorities, such that they cannot be reasoned with; people are either too easily changed by changes in circumstances or too rigid to change at all (or a freakish combination of the two, as is the case in “The Wait”). Reed very much exploits the fact that her readers will already be primed to find new and strange worlds in her stories; there’s a constant negotiation at play among what you expect, what you get, and what you can assume.…

Behind the paywall: Some discussion of “Songs of War.”

Read more

I’m back with my next installment of my genre column at The Point! The first one was about C.L. Moore’s “Shambleau,” which you can read here (or here if you’re paywalled out), and this one is about Fritz Leiber’s “A Deskful of Girls.” Check it out:

People don’t really understand each other: that’s at least half of what makes stories run at all. Fritz Leiber, who grew up with a traveling Shakespeare troupe, might have absorbed this fact before most people. By the age of four (the family legend had it), he knew most of Hamlet’s lines by heart. Embedded as he was in these plays, watching Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies of crossed communications, mistaken twins, misplaced mistrust and disguised selves, he learned that lesson early. As a professional writer of speculative fiction, Leiber would go back to Shakespeare often, setting stories backstage at Shakespeare productions or lifting a line to title a book. The greatest tribute he would pay to Shakespeare, though, was his interest in human doubleness: double agents, double crossings, double hearts.

I think this piece and the Northanger Abbey piece are some of the better things I’ve written lately. So… read it!1

Read more

These are capsule reviews for (some) things I’m reading in the process of researching Weird Sisters. If you don’t want to follow this category, you can see instructions on how to adjust your subscription here. Bookshop links are affiliate links.

Read more

In September 1959, Joanna Russ’s first genre story, “Nor Custom Stale,” was published in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. In the next issue, the magazine also published the first half of a serial by Robert Heinlein titled “Starship Soldier,” better known now as Starship Troopers. Heinlein’s book would go on to win the Hugo for best novel; Russ’s next story, “My Dear Emily,” wouldn’t show up until 1962.

There’s no relationship between Russ’s story and Heinlein’s other than proximity, but one part of researching Weird Sisters is going back to read the old Hugo and Nebula winners that I haven’t read (or haven’t read in a long time), as a way of keeping a “mainstream” in mind as I go. And Heinlein is, in general, a pretty big blind spot for me. If I read any of his stuff when I was young I have forgotten it. So, here are some notes on Starship Troopers. Initially, I was going to do a bundle of “weird capsule reviews” but this turned out a bit too long for that. Still, they rea…

Read more

There’s supposed to be a taboo about talking about money and we’re supposed to break that taboo for public-spirited reasons. I would like to say that I’m detailing some stuff about the money side of writing a book for such reasons. But in truth, I just like talking about myself. And money! There’s a point at which money becomes not fun to talk about because people start hating you. But I am not there yet… I think….

What follows is not fully transparent (please imagine those words triple underlined, written in red, circled, etc). This is not like… my entire financial history or expenditures or income or whatever. It is (mostly) the kind of stuff I would turn over to i.e. a grant committee. If that makes it unhelpful to you, well… I did say I was only doing this because I like talking about myself.

I’m paywalling some of this but the ~gossip items~ are all above the cut.

All expense numbers are counting from January 2024 to now.

Advance: $50,000, paid in thirds (divided into signing, delivery, publication). So, after my agent’s cut and putting aside a chunk for taxes… that’s about $10,000 on signing, I think?

Number of books I have to sell to “earn out”: According to this calculator, 14,409 hardbacks. I believe in me. 🫡

Amount spent on research materials (books, magazines, zines, etc, but not supplies like electronics or notebooks or pens): About $3900.

Amount spent on supplies: $993, ~half of which went to an e-ink tablet. Extremely useful. If you spend any amount of time with PDFs, you should consider getting one.

Single largest sum dropped on a research item: $320, for The Complete Science Fiction Digest and Fantasy Magazine. Also super useful.

Single stupidest purchase: Probably paying for Notion ($120) because free Notion could do everything I actually wanted it to do, and yet I was like… “I must pay for this.”

So if you’re doing some mental math here, that leaves about $380 of “supplies.” You are asking yourself… is that shit just pens? Did she spend $380 on pens??

No. That would be stupid. I spent $123 on pens.

Read more

Who was the first woman to write science fiction?

One traditional answer is Mary Shelley (Frankenstein, 1818). Another is Margaret Cavendish (The Blazing World, 1666). Maybe you favor Marie-Anne de Roumier-Robert (The Voyages of Lord Seaton to the Seven Planets, 1766). If you’re looking only at Americans—that is, if your question is really, “who was the first American woman to…”—you might pick Gertrude Barrows Bennett (who wrote under “Francis King”) or Claire Winger Harris (who is often tagged the first American woman writer who wrote science fiction under her own name).1

That is, the question “who was the first woman to write science fiction” is kind of like asking “who wrote the first novel.” If you consider a novel to be a work of prose fiction sustained over a certain length, then the Romans were writing novels (including science fiction).2 If you don’t, then it’s more complicated. If “science fiction” means any counterfactual narrative that doesn’t inv…

Read more

I’m really excited to share this news! Weird Sisters was an idea I had back in 2020 (!), but at the time, I thought the smart thing to do was to work on an essay collection. Getting sick clarified for me that I should do the book I’m a little scared to write.

This is also a project that is going to bring together a lot of my pet interests, which, I mean, any book of mine ought to do! One thing I stressed in the proposal for this book was that women are very present in SFF before the period I’m focusing on. And there are going to be a lot of women I can’t include because I am king of only a finite space. I understand the temptation to say “oh, so-and-so was the first woman to do…” as a shorthand for importance, but declining to do it opens up a lot of possibilities. Some that I hope to realize in Weird Sisters are:

• putting women’s writing in continuity with tradition, but also

• preserving the ways in which they sharply differed from one another, and finally

• writing about them as major artists and / or players in their scenes, not minor ones in need of rescue

Additionally, we have

• art that also wants to be entertainment, and

• the possibilities inherent to genre

Finally, I also want to say thank you to all the people who read draft copies of this book proposal and gave me comments on it or encouragement. Thank you! You will all achieve literary immortality in the acknowledgements. And a big thank you, too, to Will, my agent, an infinitely patient man. And while she did not read my proposal and does not know I exist, I would also like to say thank you to Chappell Roan, for this specific performance. I don’t know if Joanna Russ, actual person, would have loved this… but Joanna Russ, “person that exists in my head,” certainly does.

I’ll take some questions now…

I came here to find out who the hell you are?

Here are some things I have published that are directly relevant to the book:

• “Joanna Russ, the Science-Fiction Writer Who Said No” (The New Yorker [dot com])

• “Ursula K. Le Guin was her own toughest (and best) critic” (Washington Post)

• “The Soul Should Not Be Handled” (The Point [dot com])

And here are some things I’ve written over the years that I really like, in no particular order:

• “Summer, Glorious Summer!” (Lapham’s Quarterly)

• “Full-Length Mirror” (Paris Review)

• “What Is Miss America, if Not a Beauty Pageant?” (New York Times Magazine)

• “The Bad Patient” (The Drift)

• “Monumental Woes” (The Hedgehog Review)

• “Thunder Entered Her” (Commonweal)

• “What exactly do we want from the author of ‘Cat Person’?” (The Outline)

• “American Gothic” (The Baffler)

• “Enough with the ‘forgotten’ writers” (The Week)

• “Teaching a Dog to Talk” (Full Stop)

So, that is who the hell I am. You can also see some science fiction blogging I’ve done by click on this tag, though I need to go through and straighten out my archives.

Read more