Sci-Fi book recommendations for 11 yo

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

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

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.

(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

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 iwill/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

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

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

"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.

"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.