[Essay] Anne McCaffrey and Implicit Social Values in Fiction

[edenfalling]

---------------------------------------------
Anne McCaffrey and Implicit Social Values in Fiction
---------------------------------------------

This started as an attempt to discuss why I dislike the casual sex in Anne McCaffrey's Crystal Singer trilogy. It got away from me at some point and turned into a more general discussion of things I dislike about her fiction.

I have nothing against casual sex, per se. What I dislike is McCaffrey's implicit attitude toward sex, and particularly toward indiscriminate casual sex with multiple partners. She treats it as something less meaningful than a good conversation, until she gets into romance mode, at which point sex becomes Special and practically spiritually charged.

Maybe this reflects what sex is like when you share it with somebody you don't really give a damn about vs. somebody you genuinely care for. I still don't like it. For one thing, if you don't care about a person, why would you bother having sex with him, especially if you know what it's like when you do care about your partner? It seems like sex for the sake of the readers' titillation... except without the titillation, because she never describes it in any detail.

Maybe she simply wants to say that if men can sleep around, women can too. If so, that strikes me as extremely stupid -- just because men have acted like pigs for thousands of years doesn't mean women should act like pigs in the name of gender equality. :-)

Anyway, I dislike a lot of McCaffrey's implicit social attitudes, as expressed in her fiction: militant veganism; intellectually incoherent fwuffy bunny animal love (love nature, but save the otters from the wolves! no matter what effect that may have on the ecological balance of the region!); trite environmentalism without acknowledging industrialism's great success at lifting people from poverty; a glorification of the individual over the group; and especially a disdain for people who work together and create the stable societies her Special people must escape. (The glorification of Special people is particularly evident in The Rowan and its sequels, in which a small coterie of powerful psychics essentially rule humanity from behind the scenes, and are always proved right in the end. That's not the overt message of the books, but it's a strong undercurrent, and the more I think about the implications the more disquieted I become.)

The thing I like most about the Crystal Singer trilogy is that McCaffrey acknowledges, for once, that her Special people can be unpleasant, self-defeating, and flat-out wrong. Of course, Killashandra gets a happy ending anyway -- courtesy of a not-terribly-convincing change of heart and a handy deus ex machina -- but at least some of her obstacles are internal rather than imposed by a heartless, faceless social order that doesn't understand her Specialness, or whatever.

On the other hand, McCaffrey's ill-treatment of her non-favored characters is still blatant. It's not enough for the Trundumoux in Crystal Singer to be a moderately xenophobic and highly ordered (read: "inflexible") society; they have to wear garish outfits and be stupid as well. It's not enough for the Elders of Optheria, in Killashandra, to be controlling the population with subliminal orders; they have to be plagiarists as well. It's not enough for the scientists in Crystal Line to be absorbed in their work and understandably disdainful of a non-specialist's opinion; they have to be stiff, pedantic, humorless, and trapped in a seemingly unhealthy marriage as well.

McCaffrey's Special characters share her disdain for their non-Special counterparts. It's not enough for Bollam, Lanzecki's hapless assistant in Crystal Line, to be physically weak, timid, and inexperienced; he has to be completely inept at everything. Everyone insults and bullies him with no remorse, and Lanzecki's treatment of him -- essentially using Bollam as his method of suicide -- is monstrous. No one shows compassion for him in the aftermath, either; Killashandra's only reaction is furious jealousy that Bollam was mentally injured enough by a mach storm to mostly forget the incident.

I also find it noteworthy that Lars Dahl's chief reaction to the repressive Optherian government is not outrage at the mental control of thousands of Mainlanders, but indignation that the Elders are preventing Theach and Nahia from displaying the full spectrum of their Specialness. To him and to Killashandra, the Mainlanders are almost less than human; they don't count. In a certain light, Lars and Killashandra, like most of McCaffrey's heroes, are halfway to sociopathic.

I have a different attitude toward implicit social standards in fanfiction and in published original fiction. While I do hold fanfiction to basic standards of mechanics, characterization, and logic, I don't demand that fanfiction be as rounded as published fiction. I think a lot of fanfiction is written specifically to scratch an itch roused by canon, and as such it's very narrow in focus. If somebody wants to respond to canon by writing nothing but sex, that's fine by me. (I probably won't read it -- I prefer plot -- but it's no skin off my back.)

But original published fiction is not a pure response to something else. It's an attempt to create a new thing, a whole thing. Therefore, I pay more attention to the implicit aspects of the stories and worlds... at least in part because those hidden, half-thought-out pieces of worlds are what I often respond to when I write fanfiction. When I think about what McCaffrey's books imply about sex in particular, and human relationships in general, I get really ticked off. People exist within social networks -- people cannot be human without other people -- and McCaffrey so rarely acknowledges the need for compassion beyond a narrow circle of blessed Special people. She so rarely acknowledges that social systems exist for a reason, even when they're frustrating or seem to keep Special people from achieving their goals. She so rarely acknowledges that people can disagree with her Special people without being wrong, stupid, or outright evil.

I dislike those implicit attitudes immensely.

---------------------------------------------

Your mileage may, of course, vary. Please feel free to point out any factors I may be ignoring or misinterpreting.

Comments

[askerian]

♥ ooh, that was well-put. Thanks for wording it. I haven't read much of anything she wrote except from Pern books -- I did try her new series but never really felt grabbed by them, but from what I remember, whoa, Sues galore. The problems are already there with the Pern series too. Alas.

[edenfalling]

Some of her earlier work, while fairly ragged in its pacing, is more interesting because she hadn't settled into her handful of cliches. But it still has Specialness galore, and a tendency to skim over the disquieting and/or traumatic implications of big events.

[purple-alicorn.livejournal.com]

Of course in the Pern series there is the practically rape of the mating flights - and the double standards inherant in the method of choosing as relased to sexuality...

And in the Tower series there is also the almost rape and the idea that homosexuality can be cured by the right person...

And in the Crystal Singer there is (I think) the morning song = arousal/sex with convient partner unless steps are taken...

And in the Catani(?)/Freedom series there is drunk sex and dubious consent sex...

I used to like her stuff but her attitude towards sex drove me right off her stuff and I refuse to buy the stuff. There is obviousl trauma that she hasn't explored/dealt with properly.

[tjalorak.livejournal.com]

Regarding the portrayal of sex at least, I don't really see anything that's weird about it. People have sex because it's fun and you get highs/orgasms from it. That's it basically, no? It's the same reason some people troll bars to get their jollies off and go home for one-night stands. Does it mean anything special/romantic? No. If they get into a relationship, could it be? Yes (leaving aside my personal thoughts that if they're a serial one-night stand person, they probably have commitment issues with a relationship).

Why do we do anything else many times, when only some times it's special? For ex., there are many basketball games but the "special" games are the playoffs. There are many meals in a year but only certain meals are imbued with a feeling (birthday celebration, Thanksgiving dinner, etc.).

As for Anne McCaffrey, I used to read her books several years back, but I have not found her books enjoyable since.

[elenathehun.livejournal.com]

*snickers* Yeah, that's McCaffrey for you. Slightly creepy characters, annoying governments (when she likes them!) and general all-around "I know better than you". I remember reading the Pegusus-whatever series, and being totally turned off by the soft authoritarianism of the whole thing.

Of course, that's probably because I was reading "1984" for school, but still. Her universes aren't really happy places.

[lukita.livejournal.com]

ohh~ I used to read her stuff as well, but stopped after I read a certain amount of her work and found it's very repetitive of certain themes that I didn't care for. I remember her being very sexist in her books, the first time I noticed it was in her Pern book 'Dragonflight" when she gave the queen dragons the inability to digest those rocks because the female doctor was sexist or Chinese (I forgot which pissed me off more). I also didn't like how she treated the "evil" characters or characters who were mean to her Special character, dying horribly seems to be the running theme in that.

And tent pegs, I can't take her seriously after that.

[edenfalling]

Mmm. I suppose so, but I personally fall into the category of people who think there ought to be more to sex than just the physical. It ought to mean something -- if it's just a brief high you're after, why bother with sex when there are other, simpler, less potentially emotionally fraught ways to have fun?

Which is not to say that I feel my views should be imposed on the rest of the world... but a lot of people do think the way I do, and in McCaffrey's worlds I always get the sense that people with my attitude toward sex would be rarer than unicorns, and much less tolerated.

And, as purple_alicorn said, there's a persistent undercurrent of coercion to many of the sexual encounters. Leaving aside the whole issue of dawn striking music from the crystal ranges and leaving people so aroused they'll have sex with whoever happens to be nearby -- even if that person is the wrong gender for their normal preferences! -- there are some weird things going on in the Crystal Singer trilogy alone.

In Crystal Singer, Lanzecki is the Guild Master and Killashandra is his new, bewildered employee. He's in a position of power over her, and already manipulating her into various courses of action... so for him to then seduce her is morally questionable. Killa's earlier relationship with Carrik, the first Crystal Singer she meets, is also manipulative. McCaffrey does acknowledge that Carrik was taking advantage of Killa's youth and inexperience, but the tone of their relationship is such that you get the feeling she thinks the manipulation was morally neutral, or even beneficial to Killa!

In Killashandra, Killa is immediately attracted to Lars Dahl, even though he kidnapped her and stranded her on an isolated island for several weeks. She then doesn't tell him who she is, which leads to a very odd dynamic at the start of their relationship.

In Crystal Line, when Killa is estranged from Lars Dahl, she has sex with several men during a vacation, including one time when a man deliberately tries to get her drunk in order to take advantage of her. Now, because Killa's a Crystal Singer, her alcohol tolerance is such that she doesn't really get drunk, and her decision to sleep with him is consensual... but the man doesn't know that. And he's portrayed as a good, morally upstanding person!

[edenfalling]

I dunno if her views have anything to do with trauma -- people can be weird without anything particularly notable or tragic in their pasts. But yeah, the closer you look at McCaffrey's attitudes toward sex, the odder they appear.

[edenfalling]

Her universes aren't really happy places.

They're really not. All her societies seem broken to some degree -- they function because a small group of strong/wise leaders make them function, and the vast majority of the people are considered amusing distractions at best, and actively obstructionist at worst.

[edenfalling]

She gave the queen dragons the inability to digest those rocks because the female doctor was sexist or Chinese.

Sexist and Chinese, IIRC. Which is a pity, because I liked a lot of other things about that book... though the more I think about the Pern series, the more it bugs me that people kept on accepting their essentially feudal social structure even after exposure to lost knowledge. Most of their leaders really were -- according to McCaffrey -- strong/good/wise, and they cowed their opposition with their Specialness. It's like the Divine Right of Kings come back to life.

Tent pegs? Dare I ask?

[deralte.livejournal.com]

I haven't actually read the Crystal Singer series, but I have read the whole Pegasus series (The Rowan's the third book etc) and most of the Pern books. They're great books when you're a teenage girl, but not so good on the reread. Dragonflight and The Rowan read more like fairy tales (Cinderella and Rapunzel respectively) than anything realistic. I remember being really creeped out when Daila (or whatever the woman's/kid's name was in the fourth/fifth books of the Pegasus series) fell in love with the guy who had pretty much raised her from birth and whom she'd imprinted on as far as I could tell (what is she, a baby duck?). Actually, there's a lot of that going on in her series with women being paired off with an older man who she imprinted on as a child.

That being said, even with the intelligista socialistic imperialistic undertones, I still really adore the first two books of the Pegasus series for being decent attempts at portraying an 'x-men' scenario in the real world. I was always disappointed that the Rowan was essentially a love story.

I reread Pern sometime in high school and was appalled to see the rape inherent in the dragon mating scenes, and I don't really think I could stand the series in general anymore, but they're nice when you're young.

[tjalorak.livejournal.com]

Well, personally, the first sentence is where I tend to as well -- that sex should be meaningful. But, I think it's the opposite in that the vast majority of people, esp. younger people, think casual sex is fine, and that it will be increasingly fine as they grow up. I don't really understand your second sentence: if you think casual sex is fine, there is no 'emotionally fraught' aspect (unless you're getting pregnant). And really, it's hormones; some people just like that type of high.

Regarding McCaffrey's world, it is sci-fi and thus, speculative by definition. I remember reading this series several years back although I wasn't particularly motivated to read it again. I guess I just don't see where it's a big deal, but I tend to be rather broad-minded regarding kinks. Not my own cup of tea, but if Killa feels it's fine, then really, hers and her partner's are really the only opinion that matters. It probably speaks more to McCaffrey's views, I suppose (although author-text doesn't necessarily match up), than anything else. Actually, this reminds me of a scene in Cashmere Mafia regarding Zoe and her overly ambitious assistant...

And I feel hypocritical while saying this because I thought that in Pokey Chatman's (former head coach of LSU wbb team) case -- she should not have done what she did. You're right that there is an element of coercion between a position of authority and a subordinate, but I guess it's the difference between (bad) fiction and real life.

As to speaking of McCaffrey's views, maybe she's just a submissive in terms of personality and prefers to have dom/sub relationships in her books...

[(Anonymous)]

"Maybe she simply wants to say that if men can sleep around, women can too. If so, that strikes me as extremely stupid -- just because men have acted like pigs for thousands of years doesn't mean women should act like pigs in the name of gender equality."

This book might be for you:
Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0743249895-0

On an unrelated, Naruto note that really doesn't have anything to do with this comment (sorry!) I was reading "The Female Brain" by Louann Brizendine, MD. Besides being enlightening in general, I read this paragraph here:

"Baby girls are born interested in emotional expression. They take meaning about themselves from a look, a touch, every reaction from the people they come into contact with. From these cues they discover whether they are worthy, lovable, or annoying. But take away the sign-posts that an expressive face provides and you’ve taken away the female brain’s main touchstone for reality. Watch a little girl as she approaches a mime. She’ll try with everything she has to elicit an expression. Little girls do not tolerate flat faces. They interpret an emotionless face that’s turned toward them as a signal they are not doing something right. Like dogs chasing Frisbees, little girls will go after the face until they get a response. The girls will think that if they do it just right, they’ll get the reaction they expect. It’s the same kind of instinct that keeps a grown woman going after a narcissistic or otherwise emotionally unavailable man – 'if I do it right, he’ll love me.' " pg. 15

and when I read this, I thought: Sakura!!

Then I read this:
"The testosterone-formed boy brain simply doesn’t look for social connection in the same way a girl brain does. In fact, disorders that inhibit people from picking up on social nuance – called autism spectrum disorders and Asperger’s syndrome – are eight times more common in boys. Scientists no believe that the typical male brain, with only one dose of X chromosome (there are two X’s in a girl), gets flooded with testosterone during development and somehow becomes more easily socially handicapped. Extra testosterone and the genes in people with these disorders may be killing off some of the brain’s circuits for emotional and social sensitivity." Pg. 22-23

and I thought: Sasuke! It would explain a lot if he had a touch (or more) of Asperger's.

Anyway, that was just my randomness, sorry it's so long...

[edenfalling]

I know that To Ride Pegasus and Pegasus in Flight are set in the same world as The Rowan, Damia, and Lyon's Pride, but I tend to consider the books as two different series. This is probably because I read The Rowan first, then To Ride Pegasus, and only much later discovered Pegasus in Flight and realized that the books were set in the same world rather than just similar worlds.

I think what bugged me most about the whole Talents scenario is McCaffrey's insistance that by the time of The Rowan, the psychics are incorruptible because they keep each other in check, and therefore normal people aren't suspicious of them. This is so blatantly counter to everything I know about human nature -- and to the quite reasonable suspicions in To Ride Pegasus, that it makes me wonder if some unscrupulous telepaths kind of 'leaned' on a bunch of world leaders at some point, and have a secret commando gang to take out any blatantly criminal psychics before word gets out and whips up lynch mobs among the population at large. Which is not, I suspect, the impression McCaffrey is trying to give her readers. :-)

[edenfalling]

Interesting!

[edenfalling]

I don't really understand your second sentence: if you think casual sex is fine, there is no 'emotionally fraught' aspect (unless you're getting pregnant). And really, it's hormones; some people just like that type of high.

What I meant is that even if you start having sex intending it to be completely casual, people can very easily slide into considering it serious. If one partner becomes serious, while the other still thinks everything is casual and no-strings, things get messy fast.

I'm usually okay with pretty much anything that people get up to consensually, but I'm relatively strict about my definition of consent. Many of McCaffrey's sex scenes edge more toward coecion than I'm comfortable with. (It didn't bug me so much when I was younger, but I basically skipped over all the sex back then -- it had almost no interest for me, even in high school -- so it's only these past few years that I'm really seeing what the implications are.)

[rianax.livejournal.com]

What bothers me is there is no latitude in her attitudes towards sex, it is either random encounters or Love Undying.

There is no messiness, which sex and romance are fraught with. Lust and love do not exist completely alone to themselves.

[rianax.livejournal.com]

I hate the Divine Right of Kings. It has to be the most idiotic idea that because your daddy was a good leader that automatically makes you a good one.

Even with the Deus Ex Machina (special sword, special pet, ect.) I rather see the hero work his way to the throne based on blood, sweat, and a modicum of actual intelligence or leave it it up to the people who do.

Which is my long running story world has a matriarchal royal line with tremendous power over the magic of the nation, but next to no real temporal ones. The actual running of the country is left up the chancellor and infighting betweenthe growing mercantile and nobility; basically pre Tokugawa Japan with an Enlightment brewing in the wings.

Only way in hell, my vagabond princess can have adventures and not send the country into chaos.