PDA

View Full Version : Sci-Fi book recommendations for 11 yo


Howard Sage
January 2nd 04, 08:33 PM
What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might enjoy?
Thanks in advance.
Howard

user
January 2nd 04, 10:11 PM
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:33:05 EST, Howard Sage > wrote:
> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might enjoy?

Intelligent 11 year olds don't read sci-fi, they read SF. ;-)

( One of the long-standing debates in writing circles is whether
the term "sci-fi" refers to all speculative fiction, or just mass-market
trash. SF is generally considered to be the proper term for
"good" speculative fiction, which includes Science Fiction as well
as Fantasy. )

Anyhow - does it have to be current? When I was 10 or 11, I *LOVED*
Asimov's Foundation trilogy. It's a classic. Not to mention
some of his short-story collections. Being Asimov, there's no sex
( heck, there are hardly any women ), or violence to speak of, if
that's an issue with you.

For a more contemporary author, I'd suggest nearly anything
by Dan Simmons. Iain Banks has done some great work. Both authors
write multi-layered novels that appeal to both kids and adults.
They do, however, touch on some fairly advanced themes
that might not appeal to an 11 year old.

If he's a really intelligent child, I'd suggest Gene Wolfe's
works, though his novels fall into the "Either you won't be able
to put his books down, or you'll give up after two pages"
catagory. Personally, I'm in the former group. ;-) Wolfe
does have a smattering of adult content, so you may want to
hold off until he's a bit older.

- Rich

just me
January 3rd 04, 04:20 AM
"Howard Sage" > wrote in message
om...
> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
enjoy?
> Thanks in advance.


I'd suggest some of the Asimov books, Frank Herbert books, Arthur C Clark
books, Ray Bradbury books, and some of the more science science fiction by
Andre Norton, for the science fiction stuff. For the more fantasy stuff why
not start with the Hobbit, some of the Anne McCaffrey like the Dragon Rider
of Pern series [but stay away from the ones about the Rowan as sex gets
serious play in some of those]. And, just to throw them out there:
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Animal Farm by George Orwell, and the old
old but always good 20000 Leagues Under the Sea.

I hope the growing one enjoys them! I'm still stuck on science fiction and
fantasy lo these many years later [we won't mention *just* how many ;-)]

-Aula
--
see my creative works on ebay under http://snurl.com/369o
and on zazzle at http://snurl.com/38oh

Byron Canfield
January 3rd 04, 02:43 PM
"Howard Sage" > wrote in message
om...
> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
enjoy?
> Thanks in advance.
> Howard
>
Though it certainly doesn't qualify as current, as I first read it at about
that age, nearly 40 years ago, one that has always stuck in my mind was a
collection of short stories by Ray Bradbury, the collection entitled, "R" is
for Rocket. Some of the short stories, notably one about men landing on and
getting caught in endless rain on Venus, were made into movies and/or
Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episodes.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Peggy Tatyana
January 3rd 04, 11:55 PM
"Howard Sage" > wrote:

> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
enjoy?
> Thanks in advance.
> Howard

My daughter strongly recommends _There and Back Again_ by Pat Murphy, which
is an outer-space adaptation of _The Hobbit_. Also, some of Orson Scott
Card's books, particularly _Ender's Game_ and the series that follows it,
might be good.

Oh, and don't forget Doug Adams' _Hichhiker_ books -- probably the most
enjoyable science fiction in the known unverse (if you like to laugh,
anyway...)

Peggy

dragonlady
January 4th 04, 01:14 AM
In article >,
(Howard Sage) wrote:

> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
> enjoy?
> Thanks in advance.
> Howard
>

Not current, but LeGuin's "Earthsea Trilogy" is still one of my
favorites for kids this age.

My son started enjoying Orson Scott Card at just a little older than
this: he wasn't crazy about the Alvin Maker series, but loved Ender's
Game and the rest of the stuff in that series.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

nugatory
January 4th 04, 04:49 AM
Howard Sage wrote:
>
> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might enjoy?
> Thanks in advance.
> Howard

"Current" is harder (and mostly out of curiosity, why do you specify
that?)...

This Christmas with my extended family, I gave the 11-yr-olds one
classic Heinlein each, and tossed out another half-dozen to be shared
and then left behind in the house that we were renting. They all
got read, with much enthusiasm. In general, Heinlein is fairly iffy
for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who has read a lot of his
stuff, but the early books (Between Planets, Star Beast, Citizen
of the Galaxy, Starman Jones, Have Spacesuit-Will Travel, Red
Planet, Orphans of the Sky, ....) have been scoring with kids that
age for fifty years.

Colleen Porter
January 4th 04, 04:53 PM
nugatory > wrote in message >...
> Howard Sage wrote:
> >
> > What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might enjoy?
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Howard
>
> "Current" is harder (and mostly out of curiosity, why do you specify
> that?)...
>
> This Christmas with my extended family, I gave the 11-yr-olds one
> classic Heinlein each, and tossed out another half-dozen to be shared
> and then left behind in the house that we were renting. They all
> got read, with much enthusiasm. In general, Heinlein is fairly iffy
> for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who has read a lot of his
> stuff, but the early books (Between Planets, Star Beast, Citizen
> of the Galaxy, Starman Jones, Have Spacesuit-Will Travel, Red
> Planet, Orphans of the Sky, ....) have been scoring with kids that
> age for fifty years.

Those weren't just the "early books," they were books specifically
written for a youth audience. Asimov did the same thing, but wrote
the Lucky Starr books under the pseudonym "Paul French" to avoid
confusion.

But I agree, parents should be careful about which Heinlein books
their young person is reading--and there are some, like Tunnel in the
Sky and Time for the Stars which are very much for teens.

i would definitely add Podkayne of Mars to that list, since it is one
of the few with a female role model. Some of his books (Farmer in the
Sky) tend to be a bit sexist.

Since people are lumping fantasy with sci-fi, I have to mention Diane
Duane's "Wizard" books again, which start with "So you want to be a
wizard." We love these on tape for family trips, because both young
and old can enjoy them

My son says that some of Elizabeth Moon's books are aimed at middle
schoolers, but the first one I picked up was a bit mature, so I'll
have to report back on that.

Colleen Kay Porter

dragonlady
January 4th 04, 10:51 PM
In article >,
(Colleen Porter) wrote:

> nugatory > wrote in message
> >...
> > Howard Sage wrote:
> > >
> > > What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
> > > enjoy?
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > > Howard
> >
> > "Current" is harder (and mostly out of curiosity, why do you specify
> > that?)...
> >
> > This Christmas with my extended family, I gave the 11-yr-olds one
> > classic Heinlein each, and tossed out another half-dozen to be shared
> > and then left behind in the house that we were renting. They all
> > got read, with much enthusiasm. In general, Heinlein is fairly iffy
> > for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who has read a lot of his
> > stuff, but the early books (Between Planets, Star Beast, Citizen
> > of the Galaxy, Starman Jones, Have Spacesuit-Will Travel, Red
> > Planet, Orphans of the Sky, ....) have been scoring with kids that
> > age for fifty years.
>
> Those weren't just the "early books," they were books specifically
> written for a youth audience. Asimov did the same thing, but wrote
> the Lucky Starr books under the pseudonym "Paul French" to avoid
> confusion.
>
> But I agree, parents should be careful about which Heinlein books
> their young person is reading--and there are some, like Tunnel in the
> Sky and Time for the Stars which are very much for teens.
>
> i would definitely add Podkayne of Mars to that list, since it is one
> of the few with a female role model. Some of his books (Farmer in the
> Sky) tend to be a bit sexist.

That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
are interesting characters in themelves. I think these things DO affect
how boys and girls this age see themselves and their possiblilities.
So it could be important to make sure you offer a balance of more recent
stories with decent female leads.

OTOH, they are ripping good stories. I particularly enjoy Heinlein's
collection of short stories, "The Past through Tommorrow", and all of
Asimov's robot stories and The Foundation Trilogy and . . . I have way
too little time to read fiction these days.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

H Schinske
January 5th 04, 01:41 AM
Colleen Kay Porter wrote:

>Since people are lumping fantasy with sci-fi, I have to mention Diane
>Duane's "Wizard" books again

They have a lot of science fiction aspects in them, too.

--Helen

K, T, E & N
January 5th 04, 05:33 PM
Eragon (Inheritance, Book 1) -- by Christopher Paolini

Irene
January 5th 04, 06:27 PM
"just me" > wrote in message >...
> "Howard Sage" > wrote in message
> om...
> > What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
> enjoy?
> > Thanks in advance.
>
>
> I'd suggest some of the Asimov books, Frank Herbert books, Arthur C Clark
> books, Ray Bradbury books, and some of the more science science fiction by
> Andre Norton, for the science fiction stuff. For the more fantasy stuff why
> not start with the Hobbit, some of the Anne McCaffrey like the Dragon Rider
> of Pern series [but stay away from the ones about the Rowan as sex gets
> serious play in some of those].

I'll also point out that Dragonquest and The White Dragon(the second &
third of the Dragon Rider series) are also a bit racy, at least when I
read them in high school. The parallel Dragonsinger series is less
racy, but may not appeal to boys as much.

Not to reply to every message here - in junior high, I loved the
Douglas Adams Hitchhiker series. I had already read the Lord of the
Rings by then, as well as Madeleine L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time series.
(In spring of 5th grade, we were assigned The Hobbit & A Wrinkle in
Time in class - I then read the entire LOTR series over the summer.) I
also liked the Heinlein juveniles at that age, though I will agree
that many are sexist.

Piers Anthony's Xanth series and Robert Asprin's books might also be
worthwhile to check out.

I'm not sure if it counts as SF, but I just bought Coraline by Neil
Gaiman for my 9 yo niece, who likes "scary stuff" and Harry Potter. I
haven't read it, but I've read all of his grown-up stuff and love
them, especially American Gods. I wish I had more other current ideas
for you.

Irene

Penny Gaines
January 6th 04, 05:11 PM
dragonlady wrote in >:
[snip]
>> i would definitely add Podkayne of Mars to that list, since it is one
>> of the few with a female role model. Some of his books (Farmer in the
>> Sky) tend to be a bit sexist.
>
> That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
> they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
> are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
> by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
> are interesting characters in themelves. I think these things DO affect
> how boys and girls this age see themselves and their possiblilities.
> So it could be important to make sure you offer a balance of more recent
> stories with decent female leads.
[snip]

That is true, even if they were written by women.

I read one of the early Darkover books by Marion Zimmer Bradley, and it
was basically a "boy's own adventure" story, with about three women
mentioned in the entire book. It was a complete contrast to her later
Darkover books.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

Joel Rosenberg
January 8th 04, 07:34 PM
(Howard Sage) writes:

> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might enjoy?
> Thanks in advance.
> Howard
>

Diane Duane's Wizard books -- they are, frankly, much better than the
Harry Potter ones.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)

Beth Gallagher
January 13th 04, 01:21 PM
"dragonlady" > wrote
>
> That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
> they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
> are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
> by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
> are interesting characters in themelves.

How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series, then?
My DH and DS read it together; both LOVED it, and DH noted that it was full
of interesting female characters.

Also, try Nancy Farmer's The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm. To quote from the
Booklist review: "In Zimbabwe in the year 2194, the military ruler's
13-year-old son and his younger brother and sister leave their
technologically overcontrolled home and find themselves on a series of
perilous adventures. [They] encounter mile-high buildings and other miracles
of scientific advance; they also find fetid slums and toxic waste dumps. As
they're kidnapped by gangsters, forced to slave in a plastic mine, and
accused of witchcraft, they're pursued by mutant detectives, who are both
bumbling and sensitive and who always seem to be just one step behind
rescuing the children. In the best section, the siblings find themselves in
a traditional Shona village that at first seems idyllic but turns out to
also encompass fierce sexism, ignorance, and disease. Throughout the story,
it's the thrilling adventure that will grab readers, who will also like the
comic, tender characterizations, not only of the brave, defiant trio and the
absurd detectives, but also of nearly every one the kids meet, . . "

H Schinske
January 13th 04, 08:30 PM
>
>"dragonlady" > wrote
>>
>> That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
>> they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
>> are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
>> by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
>> are interesting characters in themelves.
>
>How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series, then?

It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
doesn't seem to do ANYTHING else, her husband does all the scientific stuff.
She doesn't seem anything like the girl she started out as.

--Helen

Hillary Israeli
January 14th 04, 12:31 PM
In >,
H Schinske > wrote: in response to someone else
asking...

*>How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series, then?

I loved those!

*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she

!!!
<pregnant pause>

OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
definition, or...???

*doesn't seem to do ANYTHING else, her husband does all the scientific stuff.
*She doesn't seem anything like the girl she started out as.

Gosh. I better not quit my piddling 12-15 hours/week as a practicing
veterinarian, as I've been contemplating doing for a little while (seems
to me that right now I'd do better to simply focus on family and stuff and
go back in 2-3 years, but nothing is decided yet). Then people might start
saying that about me, except my family isn't so big...

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

Jayne Kulikauskas
January 14th 04, 08:05 PM
"Hillary Israeli" > wrote in message
...
> In >,
> H Schinske > wrote: in response to someone else
> asking...
>
> *>How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series,
then?
>
> I loved those!
>
> *It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but
the
> *mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
>
> !!!
> <pregnant pause>
>
> OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
> Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
> of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
> family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
> definition, or...???
[]

Thanks for writing this, Hilary. That was exactly my reaction and I was
wondering if I was being over-sensitive because I am nothing but the mother
of a big family. I very much relate to the character of Meg, both the
misunderstood sensitive child and the happy adult. I suppose that I tick
people off too by staying home to look after my children instead of having
an important job and living up to my potential.

Jayne

H Schinske
January 14th 04, 08:06 PM
>In >,
>H Schinske > wrote:
>*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
>*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she

and responded:
>
>!!!
><pregnant pause>
>
>OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
>Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
>of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
>family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
>definition, or...???

I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case of
Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level. It just isn't
reasonable to suppose that she could suppress all that side of herself just
because she has kids. She might not have been able to work in as singleminded a
fashion, but there should be some indication that she is still basically the
same person, in the way that Calvin is obviously still himself only older.

I would be just as upset if she had suppressed all the warm, human,
family-loving side of herself to be a great physicist and nothing but a great
physicist. (Note: not saying she would have *had* to have kids to maintain this
side of herself, either.)

My grandmother got her BA in math at a time when very few women were math
majors (or even went to college). I don't feel upset that she then married a
doctor and settled down to be a small-town wife and mother, because she was
happy with that and didn't appear stifled at all. But the difference is that
while she was a gifted woman, and in these days might well have made a career
in the sciences, I very much doubt that she was headed for earthshattering
discoveries. She didn't have to change who she was.

My mother had six kids, and naturally raising us was one of her greatest life
accomplishments, but she was always a doctor, and always a writer, and that was
just the way it was. And that's how Meg Murry's mother is presented (remember
the stew on the Bunsen burner and all that), so it seems strange to me that Meg
would do something so different.

--Helen

Elizabeth Gardner
January 14th 04, 11:01 PM
In article >,
(H Schinske) wrote:

> >In >,
> >H Schinske > wrote:
> >*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
> >*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
>
> and responded:
> >
> >!!!
> ><pregnant pause>
> >
> >OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
> >Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
> >of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
> >family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
> >definition, or...???
>
> I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case
> of
> Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
> potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level. It just isn't
> reasonable to suppose that she could suppress all that side of herself just
> because she has kids. She might not have been able to work in as singleminded
> a
> fashion, but there should be some indication that she is still basically the
> same person, in the way that Calvin is obviously still himself only older.
>

Actually, I was surprised that Calvin ended up a scientist--IIRC he was
initially presented as a much more literary type, in contrast to Meg's
math genius persona. And so much was made of Meg's parents working as a
professional team, so I do think it's a little strange that Calvin and
Meg didn't go for the same sort of arrangement. Remember, guys, this is
a book and not Real Life, and the author can make her characters
represent whatever she wants.

Banty
January 15th 04, 02:25 AM
In article >, H Schinske says...
>
>>In >,
>>H Schinske > wrote:
>>*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
>>*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
>
>and responded:
>>
>>!!!
>><pregnant pause>

I like that - "pregnant pause" :-)

>>
>>OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
>>Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
>>of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
>>family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
>>definition, or...???
>
>I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case of
>Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
>potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level.

Which, in my view, does not mean that she 'should' do math or science or that
she even would be happy doing so.

>It just isn't
>reasonable to suppose that she could suppress all that side of herself just
>because she has kids. She might not have been able to work in as singleminded a
>fashion, but there should be some indication that she is still basically the
>same person, in the way that Calvin is obviously still himself only older.

If she had pursued Nobel-calibre work, she would likely have to suppress that
side of herself that apparently wanted to do the consuming enterprise of raising
a large family. It works both ways (like you alluded to below).

I guess the question I have is, not having read these books, what was the path
to her adulthood decisions?

>I would be just as upset if she had suppressed all the warm, human,
>family-loving side of herself to be a great physicist and nothing but a great
>physicist. (Note: not saying she would have *had* to have kids to maintain this
>side of herself, either.)
>
>My grandmother got her BA in math at a time when very few women were math
>majors (or even went to college). I don't feel upset that she then married a
>doctor and settled down to be a small-town wife and mother, because she was
>happy with that and didn't appear stifled at all. But the difference is that
>while she was a gifted woman, and in these days might well have made a career
>in the sciences, I very much doubt that she was headed for earthshattering
>discoveries. She didn't have to change who she was.
>
>My mother had six kids, and naturally raising us was one of her greatest life
>accomplishments, but she was always a doctor, and always a writer, and that was
>just the way it was. And that's how Meg Murry's mother is presented (remember
>the stew on the Bunsen burner and all that), so it seems strange to me that Meg
>would do something so different.

Well, coming from my POV as a person with an engineering PhD as recently as
1988, I know I *have* made specific decisions which meant I had to set aside the
career path others presumed I was on (academic, and/or technology management) to
be able to also be a mother. Knowing how it feels inside, I can see myself, if
I were married to a man who wanted a large family, possibly making the decision
Meg Murray apparently made.

The only other question that occurs to me is that there may be a justified
suspicion that, whatever a real woman like myself might have decided to do given
her array of talents and desires, this ficitonal character made this decision in
order to fit with what was expected for a female fictional character. Was she
the mother of a large family because the author coudlnt' consider a different
adult life for the character and be beleivable or sell books?

Banty

Hillary Israeli
January 15th 04, 03:40 AM
In >,
H Schinske > wrote:

*>OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
*>Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
*>of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
*>family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
*>definition, or...???
*
*I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case of
*Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
*potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level. It just isn't

Yeah, ok. I have science awards out the wazoo and was given some pretty
interesting offers with respect to biomedical research prior to my
becoming a part-time general practicioner and mostly SAHM. So I relate to
Meg, and I sort of felt attacked by your comment (although I am sure you
did not intend to say anything offensive).

-h.
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

Elizabeth Gardner
January 15th 04, 05:25 AM
In article >,
Banty > wrote:

> In article >, H Schinske says...
> >
> >>In >,
> >>H Schinske > wrote:
> >>*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
> >>*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
> >
> >and responded:
> >>
> >>!!!
> >><pregnant pause>
>
> I like that - "pregnant pause" :-)
>
> >>
> >>OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
> >>Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
> >>of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
> >>family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
> >>definition, or...???
> >
> >I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case
> >of
> >Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
> >potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level.
>
> Which, in my view, does not mean that she 'should' do math or science or that
> she even would be happy doing so.
>
> >It just isn't
> >reasonable to suppose that she could suppress all that side of herself just
> >because she has kids. She might not have been able to work in as
> >singleminded a
> >fashion, but there should be some indication that she is still basically the
> >same person, in the way that Calvin is obviously still himself only older.
>
> If she had pursued Nobel-calibre work, she would likely have to suppress that
> side of herself that apparently wanted to do the consuming enterprise of
> raising
> a large family. It works both ways (like you alluded to below).
>

But her mom is presented as having won a Nobel Prize for work she
accomplished while raising four children. So in this author's world,
it's achievable (though whether it's achievable in reality is quite
another question, to which the answer is probably no for a lot of
complicated reasons). And it looked from the earlier books like Meg was
on a similar path, so the question is why the author took away the
potential "extraordinary career" part of her persona. Not whether the
path she gave her was a worthy one.

Colleen Porter
January 15th 04, 05:28 AM
(H Schinske) wrote in message >...
> >In >,
> >H Schinske > wrote:
> >*It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
> >*mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
>
> and responded:
> >
> >OK, well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised to hear you say that.
> >Nothing but the mother of a big family? Because.... what? Being the mother
> >of a big family is bupkes? Doing nothing else except mothering a large
> >family means you aren't contributing to society, or aren't fulfilled by
> >definition, or...???
>
> I wasn't speaking in general terms. I was talking about the particular case of
> Meg Murry, who is presented in the first couple of books as a girl with the
> potential to do math or science work at the Nobel Prize level. It just isn't
> reasonable to suppose that she could suppress all that side of herself just
> because she has kids.

Hmmn, so do you believe that Cordelia Naismith, the spaceship captain
in Lois McMaster Bujold's "Vorkosigan" books, could give up her career
to be a housewife on a backwards planet? Or that award-winning
journalist Ann Crittenden could give up her job at the New York Times
to be a mom at home?

No, wait, that last was real, not fiction!

Of course lots of talented people supress certain sides of themselves
for other concerns in their life, whether it is a spouse, children,
parents, love of skiing, or whatever. It's totally reasonable to
expect that people might make those kinds of choices, because people
are complex, and often pulled by conflicting desires. And it is not
just women that make these kinds of choices--in the movie Indepence
Day, there is a brilliant scientist who is happy working for a cable
TV company, and whose father and ex-wife think he should have done
more.

Why can't we trust that Meg made the choices that seemed best for her?

> She might not have been able to work in as singleminded a
> fashion, but there should be some indication that she is still basically the
> same person, in the way that Calvin is obviously still himself only older.

She is the same person. Why is a career outside the home necessary to
prove you are the same person? Maybe she has found the same
satisfactions and joys she used to in math, but nowadays in a
different context.

Nowadays I am a researcher and journalist and consultant. I have a
solid repution among my peers and was recently invited to a rather
selective conference with the best in my field. But guess what? I'm
the very same person who was "nothing" but a full-time mom of a large
family (n=5) for 11 years. And I'm not the least bit sorry that I
spent those years at home, so please don't be "upset" on my account.

> My grandmother got her BA in math at a time when very few women were math
> majors (or even went to college). I don't feel upset that she then married a
> doctor and settled down to be a small-town wife and mother, because she was
> happy with that and didn't appear stifled at all. But the difference is that
> while she was a gifted woman, and in these days might well have made a career
> in the sciences, I very much doubt that she was headed for earthshattering
> discoveries.

So it's okay to be a mom at home if you were less-than-stellar in your
outside work, but if you are really smart, you should be employed?
What matters more in the long run, raising children or finding a new
star?

As far as the specific case of your grandmother, of course you didn't
actually know her back then, so you really have no clue.

My mother served in the military during World War II, and for decades
many thought it was out of patriotism. In an interview shortly before
her death, she explained that it was really because the military was
the only place you could find cigarettes, booze and men. Great story
to tell the grandkids:)

> My mother had six kids, and naturally raising us was one of her greatest life
> accomplishments, but she was always a doctor, and always a writer, and that was
> just the way it was.

That's nice for her, and it's wonderful that she had that choice. If
that's what she wanted to do, I'm happy she got to do it.

But she undoubtedly missed out on a lot of field trips and first steps
and cuddle time that Meg enjoyed with her kids. There are only 24
hours in a day, and we all have to make choices about how to spend
them.

Having choices only works if all our life choices are valued. If a
choice is dismissed as "nothing," then it is not a valid choice--and
thus we are not as free as we thought to make the best decisions for
our family and ourselves.

> And that's how Meg Murry's mother is presented (remember
> the stew on the Bunsen burner and all that), so it seems strange to me that Meg
> would do something so different.

But why? It's not uncommon for daughters to choose a markedly
different path than their moms. A few years ago there was a study of
middle school girls whose moms have high-powered careers, who want to
be at home with their children.

Colleen Kay Porter

Louise
January 15th 04, 02:10 PM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:01:56 EST, Elizabeth Gardner
> wrote:
> And so much was made of Meg's parents working as a
>professional team, so I do think it's a little strange that Calvin and
>Meg didn't go for the same sort of arrangement.

They did.

All citations below from A House Like A Lotus, Laurel-Leaf edition,
1984. Narrator is 16yo Polly (born Polyhymnia).

Page 10 of Laurel-Leaf edition
"our parents taught us, and learning was fun" "they made [tests] seem
like games.

Page 11
"if Mother's in the lab helping Daddy work out an equation"

Page 24
"Daddy's labs, with cases of starfish and lizards and squid and
various kinds of octupuses and a medium-size computer for Mother"

Page 81-82, discussion between Polly and Max (adult friend)

M: "She's been a good mother to all of you, but it's beginning to
wear on you. She's got a fine brain, and not enough chance to use
it."

P: "She helps Daddy a lot in the lab, does all the computer stuff."
...
P: "She's going to finish her Ph.D. as soon as Rosy's in school."

M: "Your Uncle Sandy told me that your mother suffered as an
adolescent because her own mother was beautiful and successful in the
world of science - didn't she win a Nobel Prize?"
...
M: "Your mother felt insuficient because of your grandmother and she
didn't want the same thing to happen to you, to make you feel you had
to compete. So she's held herself back, and it's beginning to tell.
She <i>will</i> get to her own work, eventually, but eventually no
doubt seems a long time away."

I agree that the Mother in the Poly/Charles books doesn't show any
signs of Meg's awkwardness and passion. That may be due to the
children's viewpoint as much as anything.

Louise

H Schinske
January 16th 04, 12:31 AM
Colleen ) wrote:

>She is the same person. Why is a career outside the home necessary to
>prove you are the same person?

I *never* said that. I said that she seemed to be suppressing a whole side of
herself. She did not seem like a complete person compared to who she was in the
early books. This is all 100% specific to how I read *her* character.

I don't care whether she actually has a PhD or actually does paid work in her
field. I'm talking about her concept of herself.

I am a stay-at-home mom myself, by the way, and so was my mother after I was
three. I don't even remember her as a *working* physician.

--Helen

Sandi Jones
January 20th 04, 12:43 AM
Becoming "nothing but the mother of a large family" requires a great
deal of sacrifice. No guts, no glory. Moms don't get credit for the work
that they do at home. There are times that managing a large family makes
me feel as if my brain has rotted away. I HAVE lost a great deal of my
technical knowledge, as I am busy managing other things. This may be
true for the fictional mom as well.

Sandi

H Schinske wrote:
>>"dragonlady" > wrote
>>
>>>That's one of the problems I have with some of the "classics"; I know
>>>they were a product of their times, but many of them ARE sexist -- there
>>>are so few with decent female characters. Women are too often defined
>>>by their relationship to a man (wife/mother/daughter), and too seldom
>>>are interesting characters in themelves.
>>
>>How about A Wrinkle in Time and the rest of the books in that series, then?
>
>
> It really ticked me off that Meg Murry O'Keefe turned into nothing but the
> mother of a big family. It's not that she has a big family, it's that she
> doesn't seem to do ANYTHING else, her husband does all the scientific stuff.
> She doesn't seem anything like the girl she started out as.
>
> --Helen
>

Donna Metler
January 22nd 04, 04:08 AM
"Howard Sage" > wrote in message
om...
> What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
enjoy?
> Thanks in advance.
> Howard
>
Heinlein's Juveniles (Have Spacesuit, will travel, Citizen of the Galaxy,
Red Planet, Star Beast, Pokadyne of Mars, Farmer in the Sky, The Rolling
Stones, and a lot more). Avoid the Future History series, as these get quite
sexual.

Piers Anthony Xanth series (more fantasy than sci-fi), Robert Asprin's
Phule's Company series and Myth Adventures series (the latter more fantasy
than the former).

Many of the Golden Age authors, such as Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, etc.

Jaime
January 25th 04, 03:48 AM
"Donna Metler" > wrote in message >...
> "Howard Sage" > wrote in message
> om...
> > What are some current interesting sci fi books that a bright 11 yo might
> enjoy?
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Howard
> >
> Heinlein's Juveniles (Have Spacesuit, will travel, Citizen of the Galaxy,
> Red Planet, Star Beast, Pokadyne of Mars, Farmer in the Sky, The Rolling
> Stones, and a lot more). Avoid the Future History series, as these get quite
> sexual.
>
> Piers Anthony Xanth series (more fantasy than sci-fi), Robert Asprin's
> Phule's Company series and Myth Adventures series (the latter more fantasy
> than the former).
>
> Many of the Golden Age authors, such as Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, etc.

Depending on the 11 year old (I read the first of these at 11), I
would recommend Marge Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time" and "He,
She and It". They're not the typical sci-fi stuff (lead females, for
one, unlike a lot of what's out there, even the good stuff), but are
quite good. ***WARNING***, though - there is sexual content. That's
why I'd say it depends of the 11 year old. It's not overtly graphic
(or gratuitous), but it's there.