Big Big Sky...

Literary Release of BIG BIG SKY!

I am very excited to announce the release of my good friend Miss Kitty Galore, aka Kristyn Dunnion's latest novel. She has garnered rave reviews for her previous work in the Young Adult fiction category for 'Missing Matthew' and 'Mosh Pit', as well as various compilations she has contributed to. Hard-working, fun-loving, and my favourite, ass-kicking, Ms. Dunnion is offering the world her take on woman-identified apocalyptic science fiction. I love that shit!

From her own words:

Finally - you Canadians can get your hot little hands on a copy of BIG BIG SKY starting FEB 15th, 2008!

You non-Canadians can probably order it online starting then, too. Why wait for the big chain stores to suck it up?

If you like apocalyptic bedtime stories, anarchic fables, and futuristic, queer, female Assassin Warriors, then I'm pretty sure you'll like BIG BIG SKY. Give'r a read and tell me what you think. Seriously. I'm waiting .....

DECLINE, DEFORM, DISOBEY.

Order your copy now from any fine bookseller, especially maybe a local independent one, huh? Or a biggie, if that's all you got in your town. Or online (www.amazon.ca) if you're grounded. BIG BIG SKY is published by Red Deer Press and distributed by Fitzhenry & Whiteside. Ask nicely and your local hot public librarian will order it in and you can read it for free.

I have cool friends :)

End of Year Reading List

This past year, I decided to keep track of books read just because. And also because reading stimulates the mind, and I think its important, as academics and non-academics, as people who love to read, to try and keep up with.

I figured I would include books I actually finished for classes as well, cuz really I did have to take the time to read them whole, and most of them were pretty good, so why not...Though this list certainly does not include all the numerous journals, essays, articles, and chapters I've had to read for school...then it'd be considerably longer...muahahaha...

I'm also including the MUCH MUCH shorter list of graphic novels...

While my list isn't terribly long, it's more than I thought I could get in between working and going to school.

To a literary 2008!

Legend: *--book read for school
%--re-read

And in no particular order: Books in 2007

The Lovely Bones--Anne Sebold
Middlesex--Jeffrey Euginedes
Halfbreed--Maria Campbell
Stone Butch Blues--Leslie Feinberg
Past Due--Anne Finger*
The Loss of El Dorado--V.S. Naipaul
Player Piano--Kurt Vonnegut
Slapstick--Kurt Vonnegut
To the Lighthouse--Virginia Woolf
Witches of Eastwick--John Updike
Brideshead Revisited--Evelyn Waugh
Rendezvous with Rama--Arther C. Clarke
Mostly Harmless--Douglas Adams
A Perfectly Good Family--Lionel Shriver
Breakfast of Champions--Kurt Vonnegut
The Fire-Dwellers--Margaret Lawrence*
Beloved--Toni Morrison*
I Don't Know How She Does It--Allison Pearson*%
We Need to Talk About Kevin--Lionel Shriver*%
Vagina Monologues--Eve Ensler*%
The Good Body--Eve Ensler*
Of Woman Born--Adrienne Rich*
Waiting in the Wings--Cherri Moraga*
God Bless You, Dr. Kervorkian--Kurt Vonnegut
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves--Lynne Truss
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix--J.K. Rowling
The Colour Purple--Alice Walker
The Rez Sisters--Tomson Highway
Baghdad Burning--Riverbend
The Crone--Barbara G. Walker
Women and Social Transformation--Judith Butler, Lydia Puigvert, Elizabeth Beck-Gershiem*
Politically Correct Bedtime Stories--James Finn Garner

Graphic Novels:
We Are On Our Own--Miriam Katin
Late Bloomer--Carol Tyler
The Job Thing--Carol Tyler
The Little Man Comics--Chester Brown
Chicken With Plums--Marjane Satrapi
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Long Way Home Vol. 1--Joss Whedon and Georges Jeanty

Happy New Year, witches.

On the topic of news...

These are actually two posts from another blog:

24 October 2007 @ 02:25 pm
Oh My God! Buy More Potter Crap if you're Gay!

Yesterday, I was disgusted.

Oui, oui, je sais. How surprising. Quelle suprise. I am so easily disgusted. So often disgusted. Perhaps I just have a low tolerance to disgust. Perhaps I am not suited for this.

I was disgusted because yesterday, I picked up the Toronto Star (yes, the Toronto Star) which as we all know is at least a semi-serious newspaper with in-slight-depth news articles. I opened the paper, the front page, to get to the index. There, on page A3, which is a very prominant page, because of where it is placed, you cannot skip A3 if you intend to read your paper, was a PAGE-SIZED ARTICLE on how apparently Dumbledore might be gay. (Ok, so it's really more a half-page coupled with other "Gay Rumours in Literature" and a 1/3 of the page going to an ad for some stupid rich person's watch).

No, nevermind anything else in the world. Anything else in the fucking city. STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES! BECAUSE A FUCKING HARRY POTTER CHARACTER MIGHT BE GAY. This was an entire fucking page worth of speculation based off of an off-the-cuff comment that J.K. Rowling made at a book signing about a fucking FICTIONAL CHARACTER. I know that many, many, many people hold the Harry Potter series in high regard (oftentimes higher regard than I believe it desserves) but why must we pretend that Harry Potter, nay, a Harry Potter sub-character is more important than: Dundas Square new home of Citytv or Family awaiting answers in dogs' shooting deaths or Educated people get dementia later but decline quicker: Research or Pedophiles tend to be short men, study finds, which were all on the next page?

Ok, so none of this is really what I feel is "serious news". Well, I feel sorry for the family that lost its dog, sure, but I don't give a shit about Citytv moving, I don't care if I get dementia faster later on in my life because I'm nowhere near that yet, and it's really too simplistic to pin pedophilia on short men alone. So maybe it's just that newspapers need some fucking help. Because, really, this isn't making me go "NEWS". The next page is about new Taxlaws in Toronto. That would be more important news. Then there's a bunch of trivial and serious Toronto crap and then a bit about Canada's Peacekeeping Stance questioned real brief-like in the back... That and also Canadian soldiers being douchy in Afghanistan, but really, that's not trendy in the news stories anymore.

Ok, so, still. With all this stuff going on, WHY DO WE GIVE A SHIT ABOUT A HARRY POTTER CHARACTER BEING (MAYBE) GAY? I mean, the books are out, you've read them, you can make your own assumptions, and DOES THIS CHANGE ANYONE'S LIFE? Like, does this actually make a difference in the world? I open the paper and I'm actually more interested in things like global conflicts that we don't hear about (like Israel marching into Syria sort of deal, wait, was that actually in the news?). In the Toronto Star, the "A" section doesn't cover that, only the "AA" or "World" section. But I'm pretty sure there's a hell of a lot more going on in TORONTO itself than J.K. Rowling saying "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay" in (wait for it, wait for it) NEW YORK. Or somewhere. Where ever she was, she wasn't here, so there were no dramatic Harry Potter fans running round the streets going "OH MY GOD!" causing accidents and bodily harm and such.

All I'm saying is: PLEASE WORLD. GET THE FUCK OVER HARRY POTTER ALREADY. If you're going to be coo-coo over some piece of fiction, please, choose a piece of fiction that has at the very least spent enough time in an editor's office.

All I'm REALLY trying to say is: PLEASE WORLD. GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE REAL WORLD AND NOT A PIECE OF FICTION, BE IT FILMED OR WRITTEN. Like, who cares if Dumbledore might be gay. That doesn't change things in the world. Gays, etc. are still getting one of the many short ended sticks. Oh, wait, this just in, no, their stick is a long one because Dumbledore is now on their side.


27 October 2007
Re: Oh My God! Buy More Potter Crap if you're Gay!
So, apparently page A3 in the Toronto Star is NOT a news page.

On Thursday there was a huge article on how to barter for things. You know, shop cheaper? Now, I don't have anything against bartering (although I do think there is a time and a place for it) but one of the last things that people here need is: How to buy more stuff!

Oh my God! Buy more crap if you're breathing!

My last entry was not to just hate on Harry Potter, although I find a large enough group of its fan-base so irritating that it's incredibly tempting... but the way that our news system works is so problematic. Now, I know that there's a lot of crap going on in the world, and you can't represent all of it at any given time... but newspapers could do a lot more than what they are doing now. But news is becoming a form of entertainment too, and you can tell by the pictures they choose...

Pre-Weekend Reading

In my final moments of academic freedom before the school semester really starts to kick my ass, I've managed to get in some last-minute reading-for-pleasure.

Up on the docket last week was Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama, a story of the exploration of a mysterious, mechanical planet that takes place in the 22nd century.

I have to say, this book gave me a few chuckles. What dated this 1973 sci-fi tome was not the science meticulously described (not that I would know anyway; it's been about about four or five years since I last took a science course and I didn't do very well--*head hangs in academic shame*), but rather the social attitudes and interactions of the characters. Here's an example:

Some women, Commander Norton had decided long ago, should not be allowed aboard ship; weightlessness did things to their breasts that were too damn distracting. It was bad enough when they were motionless; but when they started to move, and sympathetic vibrations set in, it was more than any warm-blooded male should be asked to take. He was quite sure that at least one serious space accident had been caused by accute crew distraction, after the transit of an unholstered lady officer through the control cabin. (Chapter 11, page 57)

Oh, where to begin, where to begin...Maybe with unholstered lady officer? Sounds like an extra in a space porn or something. Or a type of horse. And I guess the future is still pretty heterosexist too, since it seems that all warm-blooded males in Commander Norton's experience are instantly distracted/erect from their complicated, intricate big important science-guy jobs by the mere-est breast movements from the "lady officers". In the future, it seems, it's still the woman's fault for having breasts and distracting what are supposed to be highly competenant, intelligent men doing extremely specialized work.

Sigh, with a side of chuckle at this sillyness.

I call this dated, but then I think of the current Southwest Airlines fiasco in the States, and I have to wonder if really, Arthur C. Clarke was simply not expecting much to change in terms of sexist attitudes anytime soon. Damn. And this wasn't even apocalyptic science fiction. It was actually pretty quiet sci-fi.

And so was the sex in the book! Especially for a character like Commander Norton, who not only has two wifes on two different planets, but a some-time mistress named Laura on board. Check out this hot and heavy action:

"This visit," protested Laura rather feebly, "was purely in a professional capacity."
"After all these years," replied Norton, "we know each other better than that. Anyway, you're off duty now." This situation, he knew, was doubtless being repeated throughout the ship. Even though they were weeks from home, the end-of-mission "orbital orgy" would be in full swing.
"Now what are you thinking?" demanded Laura, much later...(Chapter 46, page 272)

And that's it! That's all Clarke gives us after bragging about all the orgies on board (which has a curious imbalance of males to females...hmm...maybe this book isn't so heterosexist after all...wink wink), that's all he bothers to describe! I want my money back! Hand me a V.C. Andrews please!

Considering the amount of scientific detail, to Clarke's credit it was a pretty accessible read to get through, and he articulated the exploratory and political intrigue quite well. It's a shame that the characters were written so flatly and with old gender stereotypes intact, despite the presence of some women in top jobs--though not too many of course. At least I could laugh at it in this text.

Up next: John Updyke's The Witches of Eastwick. I loved the movie for years, so I thought it time to read its source. I'm about a third of the way through, and it's certainly stirring up some mixed feelings on my part so far...

Until next time then, when I should be studying instead of blogging...

Upcoming Event (Toronto, ON)

Another great event, cross-posted from the great Miss Kitty Galore's livejournal:

SUNDAY AUGUST 26th, come to the inaugral WRITING OUTSIDE THE MARGINS
festival of queer literature on Church Street 11 am - 7 pm

We're closing down Church Street to present a dazzling array of readings and performance as well as a book fair. Also featuring open mics, a poetry slam, a zine fair and a children's area where local literati will read excerpts from their favourite children's stories.

It's free, so come check it out. Meet exciting queer authors including (but not limited to) Nalo Hopkinson, James St. James, Lisa Foad, Patrick Califia, Alec Butler, Yehuda Fisher, Tara-Michelle Ziniuk, and yours truly, Kristyn (miss kitty galore) Dunnion!

Visit www.xtra.ca/writinginthemargins/

PLUS later that night: SAVE THE ROBOTS!
Party with us at The Gladstone Hotel $10 in advance
Hosted by Christobel
Special guests: Will Munro (Peroxide), Sheila Chevalier, Fierce Helder (big primpin'), Shane Mackinnon (foxhole)and Scarlet Sylphide

Sounds like a good time!

Follow-up to Medea's Rant

I thought that this here Feministing post, Not Oprah's Book Club: Death by Chick Lit might offer a reprieve in the genre for those who are just as irritated by it as Medea is. 'Death by Chick Lit' is a novel by Lynn Harris that seems like it may have the same concerns as my fellow witch. It offers a satirical skewering of what we come to know as 'chick lit' and turns it on its head. Feministing's Courtney gives it a good review. Check it out.

I know I'm gonna add it to my bookshelf on Facebook.

:P

Weekend Readings

So what are you reading this weekend?

Or whenever your spare time happens to be?

Since summer school let out, I've been on a bit of a bender. Reading for leisure, what a joy! Sigh. And with only three weeks left for me to soak up all that is non-required reading...

Anyway, right now I've just begun reading Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse. I'd previously read Mrs Dalloway, which I enjoyed enough to start picking up her other work. I'm finding that Woolf's writing does this really fine balance of hitting emotional cores within broader social concerns.

However, in doing some light research on Woolf herself (and I emphasise light), I've come across some criticisms that suggest some anti-semitism on her behalf. I thought this odd considering that her husband was Jewish, but I'm still interested in finding out about the validity of this accusation.

Virginia Woolf is an amazing figurehead not just in literature but for feminism, for artists, and for people suffering with mental illness as well. What becomes of her work if it is tinged with a form of racism? I haven't found her novels thus far to be particularly reflective of this alleged attitude but this criticism of hers must still beg the question of how we read or accept one's work, or if we should, when the artist betrays a negative ideology. Do we brush it under the table for all the important things she brought to in the first place? How do we critically engage with an artist's work when certain attitudes come to the table?

Perhaps the first real question I should be asking is if this is even true about Woolf. I only did a flimsy little Wikipedia search; I'm definitely going to be scouring some more trustyworthy and indepth resources.

This reminds me of the whole Roman Polanski debate. He raped a thirteen year old girl and escaped to Europe to avoid jail time. Still making award-winning movies in exile, how does he remain uncriticized? How do the actors and producers that work with him forget about this enough to make with him what are apparently critically acclaimed movies? Why doesn't Polanski own up to his actions and address them? Maybe I could take him more seriously if he had at least faced some serious consequences for his crime. Exile in Europe hardly seems on par with jail time.

People are complex and certainly we cannot expect anyone to be flawless in their thinking and belief systems. But I think it may be a tad flippant to dismiss all such criticisms in this way.

So seriously, how do we critically think about the work that artists (and politicians and anyone else who makes history)offer to the world, when they have shady attitudes and actions lurking in their backgrounds?

Hmmm...

Ranting, Stemming from "ChickLit"

One of the last times I went into a bookstore, I found what bothered me most was the pressence of a table labled "Chick Lit". Somehow, this label offended me deeply, especially, I think, due to its pressence in the "safe" confines of the "educated" bookstore.

Even the idea of "Chick Flicks" has always deeply offended me. Those terrible "chick flicks" that I have seen actually deeply offend me. It's that storyline, somewhat fairy tale, somewhat modern that bothers me so much.

We all know the storyline. The pretty and smart girl who can't seem to get a relationship that she likes, who meets the fine example of manhood and then has to cope with other issues at stake (be it friends/family in the way, careers conflicting, plain and simple drama...). The ones that really bug me are usually the ones where she gives up some career-making move to another city to pursue this relationship that has already spiraled down to the break-up point at the end.

And I'm certain that I'm not being entirely fair about this all. I'm sure that there are some movies labled "chick flick" that are actually quite wonderful. But it does kind of bug me that just describing it as "romantic comedy" is not enough, it is a "chick flick", and (if you've seen Toronto.com's ads all over the TTC) if you're a girl, you need to seduce your guy into seeing it with you. Chick Flick just refers to "movie intended for women", I guess. But I do not count myself as part of the group of women that actually enjoy many of them. Indeed, when I have somehow ended up seeing another one, I am generally disgusted at the way women are portrayed in them, often preferring the slightly ridiculous female characters in action movies such as Sin City - maybe those women are scantily clad prostitutes, but damn! At least they're not silly simpering "chicks" who can't seem to figure out how to balance a vewy sewious caweer (and I used baby-talk because generally the career in question is usually fairly unrealistic, or so it seems to me) and her unbending bastion of gentle manhood.

Chick lit, to bring this back to where I began, generally bothers me more, because it always seems to me (and I really should have gone to the library to read up on this sort of thing, since I have a tendency to read what I perceive as harder-hitting, better written books) that they appear to be just like Harlequin Romances, with the exception of one thing: less bawdiness, less sex. Some chick lit may well be an interesting read, but the somewhat trite titles repulse me; Confessions of a Shopaholic, Dating without Novocaine, I Do (but I Don't), See Jane Date, Whose Wedding is it Anyway? (this list was compiled very quickly from amazon.ca). I can't critique the inside of the books since I haven't gone there yet, but the titles alone strike me as somewhat... patronizing. The first: Women and shopping. Obviously all women love shopping, can't resist sales and all that, in fact, women are shopaholics. This, by itself, I find deeply, deeply insulting. Second: Dating. All we care about is dating? Even more to the point, the summary Amazon provides states it's all about a career woman who needs to find Mr. Right, whom she can marry. I hope most women in the real world are more far-sighted than that. Third: come on people, marriage? When are we? 1950s? As a culture, we really need to reassess this marriage thing. Especially the obsession with how women should want to get married. Fourth... ok, I think we have the point. The titles under the label bother me.

Chick Lit. Like Chick Flick. Simple, memorable, catchy, everything that retailers want in a label. You've heard it once, you'll never forget it. But it bothers me that so many women don't seem to be disturbed by being a "chick". Little yellow fluffy bit, totally helpless. Chick always connected itself (for me) to "bimbo" and other such stereotypes. Chick is that bouncy blonde babe who don't know nothing but that she loves her bf (<3<3<3!) have taken notice, even if I'm not buying into it, it has worked well enough. The people who do buy into it... I can't scream about them having no self-respect due to the label some merchandiser slapped onto it. Well, I could, but it would simply reveal my own predjudices, and ignore the fact that it is their choice. And I truly feel that feminism is most deeply about having choices - equality, to me, means being able to respectfully choose what you want, without gendered restrictions. So perhaps, in this entire rant, have I been anti-feminist in disregarding "chick lit" or "chick flicks" as offensive? Or do I have a point about it being some sort of "propaganda" that is really meant to teach us how to be proper women; a simple reinforcement of existing gender structures?