Theodore Sturgeon

[lydy]

I've been reading a bunch of Theodore Sturgeon lately. I mostly remember him for _More Than Human_. He wrote mostly short stories, many many of them. I find that I'm very grateful I wasn't alive in the Fifties. He has a terrible view of men. His men are nasty, mean, jealous, and incapable of having equal relationships. It doesn't appear that he approves of this, indeed I get the impression that he doesn't. But he takes it for granted. His women are thin, often lack agency, and are always in reference to a man. It's very strange. Heinlein's view of both women and men is kinder, more optimistic. Isn't Sturgeon supposed to be the hippie and Heinlein the fascist? Ok, Heinlein was never a fascist. But I find the contrast startling, and not in a good way.

Comments

[lydy.livejournal.com]

The two dimensional characters I'm used to. I've been reading a bunch of 1950s sf lately. But the underlying characters were usually reasonable, ok kinda guy guys. Sturgeons are downright mean. Not all of them. I'm reading _Venus Plus X_ at the moment and the main character is just rather two dimensional. But in a lot of his short stories his assumptions about men are downright despicable.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

I'm groping around in my mind trying to remember my favorite Sturgeon and not finding any memories at all of mean, nasty men. There's "Saucer of Loneliness," where nobody was mean (just lonely). "The Widget, the Wadget, and Boff" (all the characters were quirky but likable, if I recall correctly). A handful of stories that were more horror than s.f.: in particular, one about a really icky teddy bear, one about a voodoo doll, and a particularly creepy story about the dynamics of a band. There was one about a sort of benevolent mad scientist and a woman with cancer and bonsai trees. I'm pretty sure I read More than Human and Venus Plux X, but I don't remember them very well.

I read a lot of Sturgeon through the years, but undoubtedly not everything he wrote. Maybe you happen to be working your way through a period where he was deliberately trying to subvert the usual genre sterotypes of heroic man, passive or shrewish woman. I don't think it's a fair characterization of his whole body of work.

[lydy.livejournal.com]

I agree it's not a fair characterization of his body of work. It's not even a fair characterization of most of his characters. But he seems to be writing with a base assumption that _normal_ men are like that. His characters are, of course, better. Sometimes. But things must have looked remarkably bleak in the '50s, is all I have to say.