Monthly Archives: October 2019

Undead sexist cliche: date rape is just “buyer’s remorse”

So let’s say a young woman hooks up and regrets it. Bad judgment. Creepy guy. Unsatisfying sex. Guy didn’t even try to make her come. Whatever. The morning-after reaction, I imagine, might be disappointment, kicking yourself, wishing you hadn’t done it. But according to rape apologists, I’m wrong: the woman’s natural reaction is to call police or campus authorities and claim you were raped!

This is a popular apologist rationalization for why so many women report rape: it’s not that a lot of guys like to rape, it’s that the accuser is suffering “buyer’s remorse.” She feels bad, so she’s going to make him pay. Some examples:

  • “Accusaitions — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’” according to Education Department official Candice Jackson. Her odious boss, Betsy DeVos has claimed she doesn’t know if true reports outnumber false reports of rape. Both women subsequently walked it back.
  • Right-wing pundit Mona Charen claimed in a column some years ago, that date rape is the result of feminists brainwashing young women into thinking sex without commitment is good. When they wake up the next morning and realize they’re now sluts, the women go into denial and delude themselves it was rape. She repeated the argument in her book Sex Matters, claiming that because of feminist political correctness, women can’t admit they don’t want sex or didn’t like the sex, so the only way they can express their revulsion is to cry rape.
  • “Some men are jerks and will treat you like garbage after sex. However ‘buyer’s remorse’ is not rape” according to the Chaste Courtship website.
  • Back when Colorado Rep. Ken Buck was just a DA, he told a rape victim that he wasn’t going to prosecute her case, because a jury would just write it off as “buyer’s remorse.” (he subsequently said the remark was taken out of context)
  • Caitlin Flanagan (of the antifeminist double-standard) says, like Charen, that women have no sense of sexual regret so they can no longer admit “I sure wish I hadn’t done that … I’m embarrassed … I had hopes that it would be more romantic. I had hopes that it would be the beginning of something. I had hopes that afterward, by the time I got home, there would be three texts on my phone.”

It’s really bizarre that anyone making this claim thinks they’re describing commonplace reality. That if someone really, really wishes they hadn’t had sex they wouldn’t simply replay the night and kick themselves, or vent to their friends (Charen claims PC simply won’t let women say stuff like that. She needs to hang out with more women). No, they’d call the authorities and accuse the guy of rape. Despite the shitstorm that could descend upon his head. Despite the shit that could descend on their own, because I think most women have a good idea that rape victim is not the “coveted status” rape apologist George Will claims it is.

And if they were going to lie, why not make up a better story? Will, for example, describes a woman telling an occasional lover no; he kept going so she just laid back and waited for it to be over. The no makes it pretty clear-cut she was assaulted, but to Will it’s not sexual assault but “sexual assault.” And he’s not alone; lots of men and women think the same. So if the woman’s going to lie, why wouldn’t she cook up a better story instead of one Will can write off as an “ambiguous” hookup?

It’s not that women don’t sometimes wake up wishing they hadn’t hooked up; Rebecca Traister argues that it happens frequently because even consensual sex is often unsatisfying (“Male climax remains the accepted finish of hetero encounters; a woman’s orgasm is still the elusive, optional bonus round.”). And that women on campus are pressured to show they’re sex-positive. But that’s a far cry from calling it rape. And unlike Charen and other right-wingers, Traister’s under no illusion the solution is going back to old courtship roles (“Having humiliating sex with a man who treats you terribly at a frat party is bad but not inherently worse than being publicly shunned for having had sex with him, or being unable to obtain an abortion after getting pregnant by him, or being doomed to have disappointing sex with him for the next 50 years.”).

But for misogynists, imagining crying rape is women’s way of dealing with bad sex makes it easier not to deal with the ugliness of rape culture.

17 Comments

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

Is our writers learning? The Future of Another Timeline by Annalee Newitz

THE FUTURE OF ANOTHER TIMELINE by Annalee Newitz is very much a curate’s egg for me: parts of it are awesome, but I skimmed about half of it. Though that’s more from personal taste than finding flaws (caution: spoilers follow).

The setting is the present, but in a world where ginormous ancient time machines have been found around the world. For centuries people have been popping back and forth through time which has led to some changes: women got the vote in the 1800s, Harriet Tubman became a senator but thanks to the odious anti-sex activist Anthony Comstock, abortion has never been legal in the United States.

The protagonists, Tess, is one of the self-proclaimed Daughters of Harriet working to edit the timeline for women’s good. Early on they discover a group of men’s rights activists and Comstock admirers pushing in the other direction: they want to establish male supremacy (I don’t know if “Full reproductive access!” is actually an online misogynist phrase but it fits perfectly), then smash the machines so that their edits can’t be undone.

As you can tell, this book is decidedly political, which is its great strength. It’s what I thought Weighing Shadows would be and wasn’t. And I find the alternate timeline tends to be more complex than Naomi Alderman’s The Power. It’s an improvement in lots of ways, but not utopian, even for women (no abortion), nor are all the women on the side of good. And as they note at the end it’s always possible someone could edit their gains away (their win over the Comstockers is more muted than I’d have liked, though given our current politics I can understand the feeling). I do think a world where people are constantly making edits would be a lot weirder and more confused (much like R.A. Lafferty’s short story Thus We Frustrate Charlemagne), but that would probably get in the way of the story.

And I really like the academic dickering over just how much change is possible: is the great man theory of history just a myth (you kill Genghis Khan or Comstock and nothing changes)? Is gradual social change the only option? One character notes that these academic theories seem to go in and out of fashion in cycles. Newitz herself seems to be advocating for both individual action and collective movements; happily the politics never feels like it’s turning the book into a Western Union.

So what didn’t I like? Well, the sections set back in the 19th century dragged for me; I’m not much of a fan of historical fiction and this got much more into that vein than “time traveler in the past” (possibly I’m parsing too finely but that’s how my taste runs). And then there was … Beth.

Beth is the other half of the book, a rebellious 1990s teen with a psycho best friend, Lizzy, who kills people (which felt like a bad knockoff of the film River’s Edge). Tess shows up and tries to walk Beth away from the madness but Beth doesn’t want to give up her friends. It looks like Tess is Future Beth but it turns out she’s Future Lizzy: Beth killed herself after getting an abortion which radically changed Lizzy’s perspective on everything. Tess came back to steer her away from suicide and succeeds, but as a consequence finds her mind snapping under the weight of new, radically different memories (something handled better here than in most time-travel films).

This bored me silly. I was in my thirties in the 1990s; I have no nostalgia for the era’s teen life and teen life is something I get less interested in as I get older. So it may just be a mismatch with my personal taste — I don’t think a 1990s teen setting is any worse an idea than me putting Southern Discomfort in the 1970s for instance. Though that said, I pegged that Beth’s father molested her at least 100 pages before the big reveal (any time someone refers to that Terrible Unstated Thing Daddy Did, it’s a safe bet).

Despite my lack of interest in Beth, the good stuff made this a satisfying read.

#SFWApro. Cover design Will Staehle, all rights to image remain with current holders.

1 Comment

Filed under Is Our Writers Learning?

Once again, science links and science-fiction comics covers

Wow, that’s alarming. Scammers are using computer voice-fakes to impersonate people and swindle businesses by phone.

How the anti-vaccine movement got so big.

Baby Tyrannosaurus rexes were covered with down, like chickens.

Scientist David Shiffman writes about dealing with anti-Semitism in science.

A blogger suggests creationists attend science conferences, if only to know what the science is.

Turtle tracks vs. creationists.

Pseudoscience about racial differences still shapes medicine today.

An extinct bird has re-evolved. It’s not as miraculous as it sounds: there’s an island where a flightless rail has been wiped out repeatedly, but rails continue to land there, repopulate and lose their wings once again. Still pretty cool, though.

My fellow Atomic Junkshop blogger Jim MacQuarrie on how our visions of SF future have changed for the worse.

Evidence for the twin primes hypothesis.

Scientific evidence our dogs love us.

Women in science vs. stereotypes.

Earth’s magnetic poles swap positions more frequently than we thought.

The impact of climate change on French wine.#SFWApro. Covers, top to bottom, by Gil Kane, Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, Kane, Kane, Anderson, Anderson, Kane, Kane, Anderson. All rights remain with current holders.

Leave a comment

Filed under cover art, Miscellanea

Impeachment is triggering Republicans

Admittedly it doesn’t take much to low-life rich brat turned Trump toady Rep. Gaetz, who stormed into the hearing rooms with a flock of other Republicans on the grounds not discussing possibly classified diplomatic material in public is an eeevil plot (being open to scrutiny does not, of course, mean support for anyone in the Executive Branch answering questions). He’s like the Spartans in 300! Except, of course, that Gaetz and his fellows are, as New Republic points out, full of shit:

“Holding the hearings behind closed doors in a SCIF—a secure room designed for discussing classified information—makes sense when questioning diplomats about national-security matters. (It also makes it harder for witnesses to coordinate their testimony.) House Republicans aren’t being denied access to the sessions. So long as they sit on the relevant committees, they can and have participated in the inquiry. Nor is any of this novel. Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News legal analyst, noted on Thursday that Democrats were operating under rules established by former Speaker John Boehner in 2015. Under those same rules, House Republicans held multiple closed-door hearings to depose witnesses during the congressional Benghazi investigations.”

At the NR link, Matt Ford speculates this is Trump pushing legislators to show their love for him, which will have the added benefit that the senators condemning impeachment now will look worse voting for it later. Though for the Representatives who stormed the hearing, I doubt Trump has to push much: here’s their story.

The real issue, of course, is that for some reason this scandal seems to be sticking. Maybe because it’s relatively clear-cut: Congress approved money for the Ukraine, Trump held it up to pressure the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s kid. So naturally they’re running around like cockroaches exposed to the light. And squealing about how impeachment violates the will of the people (which Republicans are trying to silence) Mollie Hemingway, the editor-in-chief of The Federalist (a woman who once complained women who aren’t her should stop trying to get the corner office and stay home to make babies) likewise freaks out that impeachment means government “exists to do the bidding of an unelected cabal of unelected, taxpayer-funded bureaucrats and smug partisans of the corporate media.” Well, the people spoke in 2016 and picked Clinton, but Hemingway’s A-OK with that.

Likewise pseudo-historian David Barton suddenly discovered there’s no grounds for impeaching Trump. Kevin D. Williamson has likewise changed his previous view that it’s good the Constitution is anti-democratic. And speaking of the Constitution, some right-wingers are showing their devotion to Constitutional norms by claiming an acquittal in the Senate should entitle Trump to run for a third term.

They’re scared, which is good. It won’t get Trump impeached, but it might hurt them in the fall. One reason they’re pushing to restrict voting even further (Gaetz literaly objects to counting every vote), and possibly looking at Tulsi Gabbard as a third-party spoiler (more on that here) Feeling scared they might lose is a piss-poor compensation for the pain they’ve inflicted on this country but I’ll take the partial win.

To end on a light note, my friend Jon Maki mocks the belief that Trump’s a macho badass.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Two legends of the 1960s, and more: books read

JFK AND THE MASCULINE MYSTIQUE: Sex and Power on the New Frontier by Steven Watts, hooked me with its introductory chapter discussing the 1950s’ fears that corporate conformism was emasculating men (Watts sees this as a twisted image of the housewife’s frustrated life in The Feminine Mystique) while wives dominated husbands and working women were taking over business! JFK seemed the perfect antidote: a handsome war hero, charismatic politician, the embodiment of masculine vigor and a world-class ladies man — who cares what his policies were? And JFK’s own desire for manliness shaped his view of Vietnam, the CIA (and his fondness for James Bond) and the Cold War.

Unfortunately the book from there turns into multiple profiles of the era’s various macho men and womanizers such as Hugh Hefner, Frank Sinatra, Norman Mailer and Ian Fleming himself, included based on whether Watts can claim some sort of tie-in with JFK (Sinatra and the Rat Pack yes, but Kirk Douglas and Tony curtis are a stretch). While he shows how each man represented an alternative to suburban/corporate drone life, the broader question of masculinity in crisis takes second place to the biographies — and it doesn’t help that Watts’ idea of masculinity in revolt seems to be sleeping around a lot. This also needs more context: America had been fretting about masculinity before the 1950s just as it frets about it now (Women Taking Over and the End of Men are still rallying cries for sexists). Nor do I buy his conclusion that this style of predatory womanizing was so much worse than old-school patriarchy, it helped prompt the woman’s movement. Despite some good sections, this was overall a thumbs-down for me.

THE SILVER AGE FLASH OMNIBUS: Vol. 2 by (mostly) John Broome and Carmine Infantino collects the run of Flash (pun intentional) from #133 to #163. The Scarlet Speedster battles his Rogue’s Gallery, tackles alien invaders, copes with Iris’ constant carping (what would have been stock relationship stuff in fiction then looks a lot more shrewish now), teams up with Kid Flash, Jay Garric and the Elongated Man and loses his powers a couple of times. While I have most of this era in comics, it’s good to fill in the few gaps, and Infantino’s art is absolutely breathtaking in this format. Like most Silver Age comics, not for everyone, but definitely for me.

While it’s targeted at a much younger age range than me, I really enjoy DC SUPER-HERO GIRLS, the online cartoon that imagines DC’s heroes (and a few antiheroes) as teenagers attending high school under principal Amanda Waller and Vice-Principal Gorilla Grodd. In Finals Crisis by Shea Fontana and Yancey Labat, someone’s kidnapping the school’s top female students, but why? And can they pool their abilities to break free? This was light-hearted fun, and I do enjoy some of the results of mixing characters together, like having Katana and Beast Boy as sparring partners (he’s fast, agile and unpredictable so Katana finds him a great adversary).

THE LIBRARY OF THE LOST AND FOUND by Phaedra Patrick has a self-sacrificing librarian discovers a book holding a collection of her childhood writings, and autographed by her supposedly dead grandmother; investigating, the librarian gets to reboot her life and unearth a boatload of family secrets. I have real trouble with the protagonist: she’s endlessly put upon (I can understand caring for her sick parents, but washing and ironing her coworkers’ clothes?) and miserable throughout (if sacrifice sparked joy, that would be different — this is like my problems with Heroine Complex only worse) and at the end she’s way too forgiving of her family (even her emotionally abusive father was doing the best he could!) for my taste.

THE CRYSTAL GRYPHON is Andre Norton’s prequel to Year of the Unicorn, set in the Dales during the early years of the war against Alizon (the story seems to show Alizon was so successful because they used Kolder technology). Kerovan is a nobleman cursed from birth with cloven hooves and golden eyes (a minor plot weakness is that we’re alternately told his face is unearthly and that with his hooves covered he looks quite normal), betrothed in childhood in a political match to Joisan. Their meeting and wedding get postponed by the war, but inevitably their respective struggles draw them into each other’s orbit. That, in turn, pits them against a scheme by Kerovan’s mother (in a nice touch we learn she shunned him not because she thinks he’s a monster but because he’s not the demon-possessed child she wanted to create) to raise Dark Powers and take control of the Dales herself. While Kerovan/Joisan has a lot in common with Gillan/Herrel in Unicorn, Joisan’s a distinctive character, strong-willed and good-hearted but with no qualms about political marriage being one of her duties. Unfortunately, the ending gets very deus ex as the magic the good guys have tapped pretty much does the work for them.

THE EVOLUTION OF USEFUL THINGS: How Everyday Artifacts — From Forks and Pins to Paper Clips and Zippers — Came To Be As They Are by Henry Petroski argues that in designing every day items it’s not “form follows function but “form follows failure” — thus utensil design in each generation is a response to what the older forks and knives can’t do (plus the sheer range of potential designs means there’s no one form for each function). Petroski applies this analysis to forks, paperclips, hammers (how many specialty hammers do we need?) and zippers, noting as he did in Small Things Considered that no design is ever perfected as we don’t know what might be done with them in the future. Good, and many of these details would be useful for fiction (broad-bladed knives in some eras were tools for putting food in our mouths; before the 19th century invention of the paperclip, packets of paper were often pinned together).

#SFWApro. Cover by Infantino, all rights to image remain with current holder.

7 Comments

Filed under Comics, Reading

Werewolves and superheroes: two films

Courtesy of Netflix, I caught THE HOWLING REBORN (2011), the last entry in the Howling franchise to date. Like most of the earlier sequels it’s in Name Only: right before graduation, high school nerd Will (Landon Liboiron) finds sexy bad girl Eliana (Lindsey Shaw)luring him for a walk on the wild side. And now he feels so strange, so animalistic … what’s she done to him? In a nice twist, nothing: Eliana’s human but Will’s supposedly dead mom (Ivana Milicevic) is a lycanthrope (bitten while pregnant so the strain is latent in her boy) eager to have him join her pack. Too bad Eliana knows too much to live … The high school romance makes me suspect Twilight is part of the inspiration (Liboiron looks very much like Robert Pattinson) but despite the one good twist, this doesn’t have enough spark to work (I wish they’d played more with the idea of the absent parent shoehorning their way into the kid’s life). I’ll give them points for keeping their werewolves in shadow as much as possible.“If someone finds this video, please stream it to YouTube so my life won’t have been in vain.”

JUSTICE LEAGUE VS. THE FATAL FIVE (2019) pits the JLA against the time traveling villains Mano, Persuader and Tharok, who’ve come back from the 31st century to capture reluctant Green Lantern Jessica Cruz (voiced by Diane Guerrero of Doom Patrol) while Batman realizes Arkham patient Thom Kallor’s babble about coming from the future to stop a disaster may not be entirely delusional. Action-packed (all members of the Five do put in an appearance eventually) and fun, though I do hate this version of Tharok (a cyborg killing machine, rather than the original conception of him as the super-genius to end all geniuses). Kevin Conroy voices Batman again and Batman: the Animated Adventures producer Bruce Timm voices Two-Face. “This is the end of the era of heroes — and the beginning of our own.”

#SFWApro. Cover by Curt Swan, all rights remain with current holder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Movies

When will this cruel month be over?

Okay, it hasn’t been that cruel. Vacation was fantastic. But the repeated appointments and obligations keep nibbling me to death.

This week it was some extra dog-care duties on Sunday when I hadn’t expected it. And Wisp showing up to demand petting, which I’m too soft-hearted to refuse. I have to resist, but when she mews I usually get all mushy.

Tuesday I had to go back to our dentist and finally get a crown that fit. It did, but it’s still really sore. I’m hoping that’ll pass and I won’t have to go back soon to fix something. Wednesday I had my latest Alexander technique appointment. It’s really starting to have an effect on my posture and body tension.

But after repeated doctor appointments and contractor appointments and other distractions in previous weeks, my brain just entered “Screw it!” mode and tried to stop doing any work. I got my Leafs for the week done which is good (money coming in is always nice). I managed to rewrite Chapter Eight break down Chapter Nine of Sexist Myths and reorganize it while the dogs were in day care (that kind of pure thought is much harder with them around), but no fiction at all.

And Wisp has been adorable.

Next week I have my semiannual checkup but hopefully nothing else to distract me. And then November begins and I can put this month behind me.

#SFWapro. Photos are mine.

Leave a comment

Filed under Nonfiction, Personal, Time management and goals, Undead Sexist Cliches: The Book, Writing

The Wisp and the Challenge

Wisp is now routinely showing up and asking me for belly rubs and scritches.

She’s also coming much further into the house than she used to, though she doesn’t like it when we close the door on her.The big question is, where do we go from here? Where does she want to go?

If she decides she’d like to move in, at least part of the time, we’d probably accept, but what then? Will she and the dogs get along? How will I handle three pets sitting with/near me all day long and asking for petting? Will we need to convert the French door to a cat door? How will we keep the dogs from using it, because they are not suited to outdoor life.

In the short term, I’m wondering how to handle our petting sessions when it starts to get cold. Most of them take place in the doorway to the deck with Wisp lying down and waiting for belly rubs. A month or so and that’s going to be unpleasant. I may try closing the door and seeing if I can get her used to it.

At least as she survived last winter she should be able to make it through this one even if she stays outdoors.

#SFWApro. Photos are mine.

Leave a comment

Filed under Personal, The Dog Ate My Homework

Only Democrats have agency (and other links)

Murc’s Law (coined for a commenter at Lawyers, Guns and Money) is a belief that only Democrats have agency. If Brett Kavanaugh’s on the Supreme Court, it’s because Democrats didn’t wanted him, not because the Senate Republicans had a majority. If Republicans elect Trump, it’s because liberals forced them by caring about minorities too much. And now anti-Trump anti-feminist conservative Mona Charen, who Tweets stopping Trump is 100 percent on Democrats. Faced with Sen. Warren’s growing strength in the polls, Charen writes a “harsh column” and tweets “Please, Democratic Party, pick someone else. It’s kind of important.”

Not, you’ll notice, “Please, Republicans pick someone else” — which admittedly, is not going to happen. No, it’s all on us: if we don’t pick a candidate Republicans can stomach, it’s our fault they vote Trump. As a friend of mine quipped, you can just imagine Republican laughter if Democrats told them to pick a candidate we want to vote for or we’ll just nominate a Stalinist.

Charen’s article supposedly catches Warren lying, telling stories of insurers who canceled health insurance when families faced an expensive emergency. Except Charen admits it’s not a lie, it’s happened thousands of times, but Obamacare bans it, so it’s not relevant — after all, nobody’s trying to repeal Obamacare are they (she didn’t phrase it that way, but it was implied). I suspect Charen’s virulent antifeminism (she despises independent women who aren’t her, and thinks feminism causes date rape — I’ll cover that in another post) and general conservative has much more to do with opposing the top woman candidate than anything else.

Other conservative are equally horrified Warren jokes that someone who thinks marriage is only man/woman should “only marry one woman, then.” OMG, the right-wing freaks out at her lack of civility! And then freaks out more!

In other links:

Oh noes! Trump legal mouthpiece and religious conservative William Barr warns that the left wing is soooo intolerant it’s engaging in “savage social media campaigns!” Yeah, that’s exactly like what happened at the Salem witch trials, isn’t it? It fits with the left wing’s brutal tradition of sending “snarky vitriolic” emails to people.

I have a Republican friend who insists Trump is more persecuted than any president in history. I’m sure she’s not as outraged by right-wing bullshit artist Scott Lively claiming Obama overthrew the Ukraine’s government in 2014 because he was gay.

Dave Daubenmire’s bullshit is even dumber, but he’s being invited as keynote speaker to an Ohio Republican Party event (“He is a great inspiration to myself and many others. He is the voice of reason; he is the guy you would want to be in the foxhole with when things are at the worst.”). Being a bigoted, misogynist, anti-Semitic asshat no longer puts you outside the mainstream.

Remember when Brett Stephens, champion of free and unfettered debate, had a meltdown about being criticized on Twitter? He agreed to debate the guy responsible, but refused to do it publicly.

Then we have the children of prominent politicians (Meghan McCain, Donald Trump Jr.) who sneer that Hunter Biden only got where he is because of his father.

Trump’s plan to gut Medicare while pretending to save it.

If Trump’s defiance of the impeachment inquiry becomes an issue for the courts, will Republican judges side with him? Ken Starr certainly will: the former independent counsel whose work led to Clinton’s impeachment hearing assures us Trump’s done nothing impeachable.

Another reminder that when the elephant steps on the mouse’s tail, neutrality only helps the elephant. And under Trump, we’re siding with the elephants.

Why authenticity is a lousy standard to judge politicians by. Nor is it a good idea to judge Democrats by whether a right-wing writer thinks they’re too liberal to win.

“This — this video — is what Trump voters signed up for.”

Is Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook sucking up to Trump? More here.

A cop making a “wellness check” on a black woman sees her in her house and shoots her. Radley Balko says while the cop may have thought he had a reasonable fear of his life, “reasonable isn’t the same thing as legitimate or accurate. And if police officers are seeing threats where there clearly are none, it makes sense to start asking why.”

Dressing like the Punisher, who kills people without a trial, is a bad look for cops.

To end on an upbeat note, here’s a story from 2016 about John Oliver spending $60,000 to erase $15 million in medical debt. Florida man Andrew Levy proved you don’t need that much money to make a difference: he paid off $944 in school-lunch debt for kids in Jupiter, Fla.

And I’ll give credit to conservative Republican pastor O’Neal Dozier for actively coming out in favor of impeachment.

9 Comments

Filed under Politics

Style and Substance: the Stuff That Screams Are Made Of

Rereading Robert Bloch’s collection The Stuff That Screams Are Made Of gave me fresh appreciation for Bloch’s ability to write with style.

It’s his narrative voice that particularly stands out: it changes from story to story, and quiet effectively. In The Big Kick, for example, we have the voice of the sleazy Beatnik rapist Mitch (“Sure he’s got the hots for you but he’s too sick to make move one. Too sick for the big kick.”) vs. the more intellectual (but just as nasty) Kenny (“An immature in-group’s set of catch phrases used to dramatize irresponsibility.”). Then there’s the poor whites of A Case in the Stubborns (“That porch was like a bake-oven in the devil’s own kitchen.”) and the deadpan government-report voice of Talent (“We have little information on Andrew Benson’s growth and development between the summer of 1950 and the autumn of 1955.”) and the Damon Runyonesque tone of Luck Is No Lady (“What made her think he’d go back to being a working stiff now that he had all that dough in his kick?”).

The Pin doesn’t have as much of a distinctive voice but in showing Death at work, Bloch does convey the scope of what’s going on: “How many others had died today, in how many cities, towns, hamlets, crossroads, culverts, prisons, hospitals, huts, kraals, trenches, tents igloos?”

It’s all the more impressive given Bloch started writing with painfully bad imitations of HP Lovecraft’s style (admittedly something lots of us, myself included, have tried to imitate). He worked hard, was extremely prolific, and improved steadily.

For me, style doesn’t count for much if the underlying story isn’t good. While I like Bloch a lot, this collection is a mixed bag. I loved The Pin and the Lovecraftian The Unspeakable Betrothal (not his choice of title), enjoyed most, but The Big Kick and Life In Our Time fall into the same Kids Get Off My Lawn mode as the stories in Fear Today — Gone Tomorrow. The stories sometimes feel misogynistic, as the woman are mostly there to die. Of course, so are the men, but at least they get to be the protagonist before the axe falls (Unspeakable Betrothal and The Weird Tailor are exceptions). The Big Kick is the worst, casually tossing off that Mitch raped his girlfriend Judy as if it were no big thing (back in 1959 that was a common sentiment, but that doesn’t make me like it better.

Heavens, having started rereading my handful of Bloch books back in 2011, but then getting distracted, I think I’m almost done.

#SFWApro. Cover by Howard Koslow, all rights remain with current holder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reading, Writing