Books - I have read some
Apr. 10th, 2012 07:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
highlyeccentricBecause I so rarely finish a book these days (as opposed to data-mining it, in the case of academic stuff, or getting distracted, if it's non-academic):
Holding the Man, Timothy Conigrave
An account of growing up gay in Melbourne in the late 70s/early 80s; of living in Sydney in the 90s; and dying of AIDs in the late 90s/early 2000s.
This is a lovely, lovely memoir. Timothy Conigrave was an actor and scriptwriter, and his prose, especially in the first half of the book, shows that. The account of his childhood is not an attempt to make a cohesive narrative, no Unifying Theory of Timothy; very few narrator-comments inserted from hindsight. Instead, we have short, punchy scenes focused on people (mostly boys and men, mostly crushes and lovers; but not always) who shaped Tim in some way, made him the man he was.
The account of his relationship with John is sweet, touching, and again, makes every effort not to make comment on the future in relation to the past. It's biased, of course it is; but Tim doesn't shy away from talking about how he hurt John, or John hurt him. The narrative surrounding John's death, wherein Tim is reconciled with John's mother, but written out of the funeral, the obituaries and even John's will by John's father... yeah. It's pretty gut-wrenching. That's all I can say.
The Myth of Prehistoric Matriarchy, Cynthia Eller
Finally, a book for taking apart bogus ideas about the matriarchal-feminist-utopian past! It has actually existed for a while, but I only just found a citation which sent me thither.
Eller's book does three main things, for me:
1. Gives an overview of the current ideas and understandings of the social structure of prehistoric societies in Europe (with some attention to Asia, Africa, and anthropological work on recent and current horticultural and foraging societies, for comparison and contrast).
1b. Elucidates why, on the basis of current evidence, it is unlikely that prehistoric society was matriarchal, or significantly more positive for women than any historical society (bearing in mind that prehistoric culture was probably not monolithic).
2. Outlines the history, or rather historiography, of beliefs (19th c. onwards) by assorted mythologists, cultural scholars, anthropologists, feminists, and others, in the matriarchal and/or matrifocal structure of prehistoric society.
2b. Explains the centrality of that belief, and its emotional power, for a large group of modern feminists who could be termed 'feminist matriarchalists'. These women include but are not limited to goddess-worshiping neopagan feminists.
3. Argues that, as well as being factually improbable, the belief in a matriarchal utopian past is not necessary or particularly helpful for the modern feminist cause. Reasons for this include:
- Factual improbability. At no point is it a good idea to promote your movement on the basis of dubious evidence; it means people who can see through your evidence will ignore your cause. Duh.
- The reliance on essentialist gender divisions (the idealisation of motherhood may be marginally better than a complete social denigration of women, but is restrictive in its own way to women and others whose characters and ambitions don't fit the paradigm).
- The reliance on the past to justify the future. It should not be necessary to prove that women once had power in order to argue that women ought not to be disempowered in the present.
In other news, even according to the logic of prehistoric matriarchy, the Celts are not fuckin' magical. The logic of prehistoric matriarchy says that matriarchal, matrifocal goddess-worshipping societies gave way to patriarchal warrior cultures around 3000 BC. Pretty sure we know that the Celts were a warrior culture well before they arrived in Britain. Suck that, Marion Zimmer Bradley.
Holding the Man, Timothy Conigrave
An account of growing up gay in Melbourne in the late 70s/early 80s; of living in Sydney in the 90s; and dying of AIDs in the late 90s/early 2000s.
This is a lovely, lovely memoir. Timothy Conigrave was an actor and scriptwriter, and his prose, especially in the first half of the book, shows that. The account of his childhood is not an attempt to make a cohesive narrative, no Unifying Theory of Timothy; very few narrator-comments inserted from hindsight. Instead, we have short, punchy scenes focused on people (mostly boys and men, mostly crushes and lovers; but not always) who shaped Tim in some way, made him the man he was.
The account of his relationship with John is sweet, touching, and again, makes every effort not to make comment on the future in relation to the past. It's biased, of course it is; but Tim doesn't shy away from talking about how he hurt John, or John hurt him. The narrative surrounding John's death, wherein Tim is reconciled with John's mother, but written out of the funeral, the obituaries and even John's will by John's father... yeah. It's pretty gut-wrenching. That's all I can say.
The Myth of Prehistoric Matriarchy, Cynthia Eller
Finally, a book for taking apart bogus ideas about the matriarchal-feminist-utopian past! It has actually existed for a while, but I only just found a citation which sent me thither.
Eller's book does three main things, for me:
1. Gives an overview of the current ideas and understandings of the social structure of prehistoric societies in Europe (with some attention to Asia, Africa, and anthropological work on recent and current horticultural and foraging societies, for comparison and contrast).
1b. Elucidates why, on the basis of current evidence, it is unlikely that prehistoric society was matriarchal, or significantly more positive for women than any historical society (bearing in mind that prehistoric culture was probably not monolithic).
2. Outlines the history, or rather historiography, of beliefs (19th c. onwards) by assorted mythologists, cultural scholars, anthropologists, feminists, and others, in the matriarchal and/or matrifocal structure of prehistoric society.
2b. Explains the centrality of that belief, and its emotional power, for a large group of modern feminists who could be termed 'feminist matriarchalists'. These women include but are not limited to goddess-worshiping neopagan feminists.
3. Argues that, as well as being factually improbable, the belief in a matriarchal utopian past is not necessary or particularly helpful for the modern feminist cause. Reasons for this include:
- Factual improbability. At no point is it a good idea to promote your movement on the basis of dubious evidence; it means people who can see through your evidence will ignore your cause. Duh.
- The reliance on essentialist gender divisions (the idealisation of motherhood may be marginally better than a complete social denigration of women, but is restrictive in its own way to women and others whose characters and ambitions don't fit the paradigm).
- The reliance on the past to justify the future. It should not be necessary to prove that women once had power in order to argue that women ought not to be disempowered in the present.
In other news, even according to the logic of prehistoric matriarchy, the Celts are not fuckin' magical. The logic of prehistoric matriarchy says that matriarchal, matrifocal goddess-worshipping societies gave way to patriarchal warrior cultures around 3000 BC. Pretty sure we know that the Celts were a warrior culture well before they arrived in Britain. Suck that, Marion Zimmer Bradley.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-10 10:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-10 11:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-10 11:26 am (UTC)...also, I'm developing a matriarchy in original!fic-land, and while I am making it full of flaws, always nice to see other people's critical thoughts.