tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1209220937063434171.post3673123238076634502..comments2023-07-26T05:48:07.472-04:00Comments on Papa Pat Rambles: Invisible Women in S-P-A-A-A-C-E!!!!Habakkuk21http://www.blogger.com/profile/11928724752057162332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1209220937063434171.post-61634501676200205282017-01-15T04:21:25.913-05:002017-01-15T04:21:25.913-05:00It always amazes me when a person with foot-stompi...It always amazes me when a person with foot-stompin' credentials reads my blog, and then comments on it! <br />What Davin and Rusch present goes a LONG, LONG WAY toward explaining the schizie perception that SF gives off. And it's clear, ONCE you are able to look at it. That's the kind of brilliance that you didn't need to pass physical chemistry in order to appreciate.Habakkuk21https://www.blogger.com/profile/11928724752057162332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1209220937063434171.post-74813227942632813852017-01-14T12:53:50.116-05:002017-01-14T12:53:50.116-05:00Thanks for favorably mentioning this book, and my ...Thanks for favorably mentioning this book, and my own in passing. Rusch is right, and it's a point I also make in my book, that the plethora of women's stories in the early SF mags weren't anthologized, and later readers got their impressions of early SF from the anthologies. Kate Wilhelm says this about herself in her memoir, "Storyteller." She never read the mags, she only knew the SF that was in the anthologies..... which was gender biased. -- Eric Leif DavinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com