[LMB] Doctors, Hospitals & Power

Natali Vilic natali.vilic at zd.t-com.hr
Fri Jan 30 20:52:14 GMT 2009


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:58:16 -0600
Eric Oppen <technomad at intergate.com>

>And I've heard of people doing even fairly complex surgery being  
>talked through it by a real doctor over the radio...admittedly, this  
>was in wartime conditions, or when somebody came down with something  
>_real_ bad in the Far Boonies.
>
>Come to it, in cases where you've got someone who's going to die  
>without complex treatments, but isn't going to die _right now,_ it'd  
>be perfectly possible (as I understand it) to call for help, and have  
>a lightflyer medevack them out to a clinic or hospital.  Lightflyers  
>seem to be more common and a lot easier to use than contemporary  
>helicopters.

It is possible, but *I* would not wish very much to live in
a place where that is necessary. Definitely would not wont 
my children to grow up in such a place. It looks very nice
in movies, all that unspoiled wilderness, growing up in 
freedom without nasty influences, pure etc. But there are
injuries, diseases, pregnancies, child births, strokes...
Where one needs a doctor fast. Not once a week. And one
I assume wants at least the average level of medical care 
that exists at the given time. 

All that described above is possible, and already existent
in Silvy Vale, probably even in the timeframe of Mountains
of Mourning. They did have a midwife in the village. 
But those people want more and better. They want
security of a resident doctor. Therefore according to the
regulations of the Vorkosigan District they need a hospital
with electricity. 

The initial post was about how backwards is actually Barrayar,
then it spread on the issue of advancements in various districts,
and populous voting by feet. I admire people of the Silvy Vale
because they voted with their hearts, struggling to bring 
advancement to the place where they were born. Of course that
the ways of the Vorkosigans' administration had to do with that 
largely.

Natali  



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:03:24 -0700
From: Margaret Dean <margdean56 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LMB] OT: ACC and Heyer (was TSK and genre romance)
To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
	<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Message-ID:
	<e5e3bb890901301103o1165df09y9a1b494d57275afb at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Meg Justus <mmegaera at nwlink.com> wrote:
> Tora:
>> I know, I really shouldn't reply to a paranthetical comment, but, Meg,
>> have you ever read _A Civil Contract_ by Georgette Heyer?  Considering
>> _A Civil Campaign_'s title and that some of its insipiration is from
>> that book, this is even almost on topic! ;-p
>
> No, I haven't.  The only two Heyers I've read are _Sprig Muslin_ and one
> whose name escapes me -- a very young woman dressed as a boy winds
> up in the care of a much older man.

Probably =These Old Shades,= though =The Corinthian= is an outside
possibility.  (The age gap in the former is more marked than in the
latter.)

> Sorry.  It's been awhile since I the last time I
> tried Heyer, and my general rule of thumb is that if I've read two books
by
> an author and I don't like either, perhaps that author isn't for me?  (two
> books has generally been my outer limit for that test, and that much only
> for those authors I feel I "ought" to like given sufficient circumstantial
> evidence <g>).

Seems like a sensible rule of thumb, but of course some authors are
more wide-ranging than others.

> But it's been a few years.  I'll see if I can round up a copy of _A Civil
> Contract_ at some point (not right now -- too much TBR already right now)
> and give her one more try.  Who knows?  Maybe the third time will be the
> charm?

If/when you try the experiment, let us know how it works out!  :)


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean56 at gmail.com>


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:03:42 -0600
From: Eric Oppen <technomad at intergate.com>
Subject: Re: [LMB] Women and the Warrior's Path
To: lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
Message-ID: <20090130130342.00kurbbls04oowkw at webmail.intergate.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=ISO-8859-1;	DelSp="Yes";
	format="flowed"

Quoting Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz at eskimo.com>:

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:12:40AM -0800, Judy R Johnson wrote:
>> If you want to be cynical, the really believable scenario is, "Listen,
>> Woman.  You have the keys to the castle allright, but the Guard is
>> commanded by Old Crip, and he runs the defense.  Remember that."
>
> And then there's Eowyn in the Lord of the Rings, complaining that
> staying in command back home just means that if the men get
> defeated, she gets the right to be burned with the buildings because
> the men don't need them any more.

Quite a few castles were defended effectively by a garrison of mainly  
women, along with men who, for whatever reason, couldn't take the  
field.  Those high stone walls are a great equalizer.  And women could  
do things like, for example, crank the cranks to make the catapult  
ready to shoot---women in those days were usually fairly strong,  
compared to their modern counterparts.

Women went to war in Them There Days---no army moved without them.   
They just weren't (usually) openly on the front lines.  Even as late  
as the Mexican Revolution/Civil War, Mexican armies depended heavily  
on the services of _soldaderas_...when a Mexican went to war, he  
brought along a woman.  Wife, sister, possibly a sweetheart, possibly  
(if he were young, and many of those guys were) his mother.  The  
_soldaderas_ mainly were expected to confine themselves to things like  
foraging and cooking and taking care of the wounded, but some of them  
did fight; I've seen photographs of them.

--Eric, list history pedant

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:07:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Azalais Aranxta <tiamat at tsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [LMB] TSK and genre romance
To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
	<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20090130094554.P53520 at shell.rawbw.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Meg Justus wrote:

> Almost everyone I know (I would have said everyone until this
> conversation)  sees mysteries as the fiction of justice, the
> way Lois talks about SF as being the fiction of politics.

But SF isn't always the fiction of politics.  Lois's is
political, but some of it really is the fiction of science.

I would agree that mysteries are fiction about justice.  But that
doesn't mean they presume the existence of a just world.

I don't dislike books in which the heroes and villains get what
they deserve.

I dislike books in which it is obvious that the heroes and
villains will get what they deserve, because the world is
inherently just and good always triumphs over evil yayayaya.
That world is too different from reality for me to be able to
believe in it.  I can believe in a world where people have
advanced science or magic that works in the physical world in
reproducible and reliable ways.  I can't believe in a world where
karma exists.

I like to feel that there is a real chance the heroes might NOT
get what they want, or that it won't look like they think it
will.  And I am emotionally satisfied if they then get it anyway,
not because they're nice, but because they're smart, committed
and crafty.

I also like books in which heroes solve the mystery only to find
that they wish they hadn't and then have to decide what to do
about THAT because the machinery of justice is now about to crush
someone who is guilty but not necessarily deserving.

In other words, I think that yes, mystery is *about* justice, but
because it's about justice, it's often set in worlds that are
fundamentally unjust, and those are the ones that I like.

> If it matters in the least, Winterfair Gifts was the only story
Catherine Asaro's worldbuilding sets my teeth on edge a lot.

> The reason I'm saying "you must not be reading the same
> romances I am" is *not* because if you did you'd like them,
> it's because the way you describe them is so out in left field
> that they're well-nigh unrecognizeable to me.

OK, let's try this.  A lot of genre romance, "chick lit" and
"pink books" type stuff strikes me as being set in universes
which are meant to be emotionally comforting.  People get what
they want-need-deserve not because they are smarter and tougher
and more ingenious than their opposition, but because they're
nice and they love each other.

That's not emotionally comforting for me; my reaction to that is
either "how bizarrely unconvincing" or "wow, if people really
believed this they'd get hurt a lot".

(This was not my issue with TSK, as you and I have discussed in
my journal.  There are a lot of mean people in TSK who continue
to be mean without much consequence.  Dag and Fawn are just the
only characters Lois has ever written that I really don't care
much about, and their problems don't interest me much either.)

What makes me feel good, personally, is the message that if you
are smart enough and committed enough and determined enough, you
can get what you want and deal with your enemies definitively
even though the world probably *is* out to get you.

I do get that from all Lois' books, even the few that don't grab
me--this was totally a digression from all discussion of TSK.
It's just that Dag and Fawn are not people I can relate to much.

I also find stories where people have to come to terms with
injustice and find solutions for it one case at a time
satisfying.  Hester and William Monk in one of Anne Perry's
series are aces at this.  So is Miles Flint the Retrieval
Artist.

> I'm trying to figure out how that could happen, because I've
> never had such a cognitive dissonance discussing books before,
> and, like I said, I used to discuss books for a living.

OK, how about this.

The best literature about justice is the literature in which
justice isn't guaranteed.  It's about how justice is made, it
doesn't present justice as something that just happens.

Genre romance is often written to be emotional comfort food.
Which is great, if you find comfort food comforting.  But this is
why Austen and Madame Bovary and Heyer don't read like genre
romance to me.

Someone mentioned that she turns to "pink books" when she feels
emotionally overwhelmed or has just read a difficult book.

At times like those I either read YA fantasy or go straight to
the DVD shelf for black comedies like Weeds and Profit.  Or watch
James Bond and the original Star Trek, because I loved them when
I was a child.

~malfoy :)

****************************************************************
Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy)
ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness

"I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it
think we all bow down." --Christopher Fry


------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:11:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Azalais Aranxta <tiamat at tsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [LMB] Cultural assumptions and World Building
To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
	<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20090130110908.T53520 at shell.rawbw.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, James Nicoll wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Jaye Falls wrote:
>
> > Does anyone else run into this?  What kinds of things are most likely to
> > cause the problem for you?  Any recent examples?
> >
> I prefer to read Jane Austin's novels as non-supernatural horror novels.

I think I'm the only person on the planet who reads the Twilight
series as biological/anthropological science fiction.
Seriously, Meyer's vampires and werewolves are so not human, and
if you take into consideration everything that they experience
and sense, their behaviour makes perfect sense.

*Bella* is weird, but I relate to her weirdness.

~malfoy :)

****************************************************************
Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy)
ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness

"I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it
think we all bow down." --Christopher Fry


------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:16:42 -0800
From: "Meg Justus" <mmegaera at nwlink.com>
Subject: [LMB] Doctors, Hospitals & Power
To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
	<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Message-ID: <CB8920486F914BD5BB6A07DFC6F837D4 at meg5b8d941e0ac>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

> Quoting Mary Piero Carey <mcarey at starklibrary.org>:
>
>> Someone said:
>>
>> "In Silvy Valley, they could not have a doctor if they do not have a
>>  hospital, and they could not have a hospital without electricity."

I'm still waiting for someone to write the fanfic about Dr. Vorfleischman 
that Lois set up so neatly in Memory.

Megaera 



------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:22:04 -0500 (EST)
From: James Nicoll <jdnicoll at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [LMB] Cultural assumptions and World Building
To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
	<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0901301420460.13890 at panix1.panix.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

The Calamity Jane Austin page:

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/2004/austin.html


------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:24:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Rebecca Klingbeil <bekkamom2001 at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [LMB] OT: American attitudes on child-bearing [Re: OT:
	Validation-seeking and Defensiveness]
To: lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
Message-ID: <286848.47980.qm at web83006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

~malfoy wrote about pressure about bearing kids:

>>[After kerry weisselberg  asked]
>> Umm, please can I ask, do you both live in America?

>Er, well, I was talking about a friend of mine more than myself,
>and yes, she and I both live in America.

>I don't think there is the same degree of pressure to have
>children young and often in cities that there is in the country,
>out here in California that there is where I grew up and in the
>area where this friend lives, or in Europe that there is in
>America.

>~malfoy :)

I would like to note that there is an odd pressure in America about kids in
general. Yes, there is some pressure about getting settled and having kids -
I had that when I was in my late 20s and still single and childless. But
there is another attitude that is almost as odd considering it comes from
many of the same sources: I now have 4 kids and am looked at as either
something of an oddity or, worse, someone to be pitied. 

I started having kids when I was 28 and my last was born when I was 33. [I'm
now 40, btw so my oldest is 12 and my youngest 7.] I cannot tell you how
many times people find out how many children I have and go 'Oh you poor
thing!', like I have some kind of horrible handicap. I didn't get that
reaction when I had 1 or 2 kids, only a little when I had 3, but once I had
4 - well suddenly I became some sort of victim of nature in some people's
eyes.

It's not like I didn't know what birth control was [and yes, I did and do
use it.] And it's not like I was forced to have any of these kids. I didn't
plan on a specific number but I never felt like I didn't want each one. I
damn near exploded on a doctor who just assumed I'd want my tubes tied after
having Ben, my fourth. I don't have a fifth, but the attitude, again, that I
was somehow a victim of my body and it was time to insure 'it didn't happen
again' really pissed me off. [I switched doctors immediately, btw.]

But the weird dichotomy in America still exists. You are pressured (both men
and women - though women more) to have kids; but if you have more than 2 [or
Heaven Forbid, more than the 3!], you are somehow even more to be pitied
than those who don't have kids. It's really really weird.

I don't know about the rest of the world, though. Are things different in
Europe or Down Under?

-Rebecca K.
<still trying to lurk more than run her mouth>



------------------------------

-- 
Lois-Bujold mailing list
Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold


End of Lois-Bujold Digest, Vol 44, Issue 114
********************************************

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3812 (20090130) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com






More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list