Marion Zimmer Bradley Gave Us New Perspectives, All Right

Trigger warning: child rape.

Leah Schnelbach wrote a piece on Tor.com for Marion Zimmer Bradley’s birthday. I’m not going to link to it.

In this case, I feel that what’s most important about Marion Zimmer Bradley isn’t that she wrote a bunch of stuff.

I feel that what’s important to remember about MZB is what she enabled that was unconscionable.

Let’s pull some tidbits of MZB in her own words out of her sworn testimony at two of her three depositions on the matter. Docs are up at Stephen Goldin’s site.

Q. And to your knowledge, how old was [Victim X] when your husband was having a sexual relationship with him?

A. I think he was about 14 or possibly 15. I’m not certain.

Q. Were you aware that your husband had a sexual relationship with [Victim X] when he was below the age of 18?

A. Yes, I was.

And:

Q. Can you tell me why you would publicly state that Walter was not a pedophile when you knew that he had been having sex with a minor child?

A. Because, as I said, [Victim X] did not impress me as a minor child. He was late in his teens, and I considered him — I think he would have been old enough to be married in this state legally, so I figured what he did sexually was his own business.

[Editor's note: In point of fact, the boy was 10 and 11 at the time in question.]

And about Elisabeth Waters, two quotes from her own diary:

Q. Elisabeth Waters in her 10-8-89 diary, which was given to the police, indicates the following: Quote, “And I feel like a total idiot for not having said anything back when I thought Walter was molesting [Johnnt Doe 3] ten years ago. I guess it was just another case of,” quote, “‘Don’t trust your own perceptions when the adults are telling you you’re wrong.’

Q. I’m going to read to you from the 10-9-89 entry of Elisabeth Waters.

“Marion always said she’d divorce Walter if he did this again. She seems to think that he molested both [Victim X] and [Johnny Doe 4], but she was rather startled when I told her about the letter to Dr. Morin about [Johnny Doe 3]. She said that she thought Walter thought of [Johnny Doe 3] as a son.”

For me, the following is the real kicker.

Q. Where did you have this discussion with David where he thought he was too old for Walter?

A. When he was 15 or so.

Q. So at the time that David was 15, David informed you that he believed that your then husband was not propositioning him because at that point David was too old for Walter’s tastes?

A. I think that’s what he said. To the best of my memory, that’s what he said.

Q. So you were curious enough to ask your own son whether your husband had made a sexual proposition to him?

A. I wouldn’t say I was concerned enough. I would simply say the matter came up in conversation.

Now, I have to say that I didn’t know about this until three years ago, because people don’t talk about it. Stephen Goldin asked to be a panelist at Westercon, and I looked at his site.

(edited to add the following 2 paragraphs before the end)

I have pretty strong feelings about this in part because I had a roommate (and a friend) who had molested his own child in the past and who had been on the relative straight and narrow after a good deal of therapy. But part of why he’d come around is that no one was enabling him and he felt that he needed to change. I don’t know that he never relapsed, but I know how much of a struggle he had with it.

So he had the perspective of someone who knew what he was doing was wrong. I don’t see that MZB had that attitude. At. All.

Why do we give MZB more of a pass than we gave Ed Kramer? She defended her husband when he was (rightfully) thrown out of a con for being a child sexual predator. [Note: I conflated two events significantly far apart in time in this sentence. As many people have read it, I'm keeping it as written and adding a note. See this comment. At the time of the Breendoggle, most people did not know of Breen's 1954 conviction, and thus many felt it was libel.]

Comments

  1. Ross Presser says

    This is why:

    — INTERVIEWER

    — Do you mean the writer should be completely ruthless?

    — FAULKNER

    — The writer’s only responsibility is to his art. He will be completely ruthless if he is a good one. He has a dream. It anguishes him so much he must get rid of it. He has no peace until then. Everything goes by the board: honor, pride, decency, security, happiness, all, to get the book written. If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; the “Ode on a Grecian Urn” is worth any number of old ladies.

    This is the belief in the field of literature: the ends (great books) justify the means (anything they do).

    I think this is a bad belief, but it’s extraordinarily common.

    • says

      I agree with you that Faulkner’s belief is a bad one.

      MZB even copyedited Walter Breen’s pederasty book. I can’t even imagine that one. I can imagine quite a lot of things, but that one fails me.

      I don’t believe in banning problematic works or books by problematic people, though obviously I respect that others feel differently. I just believe that context is important.

    • says

      I don’t think it is any more common in the arts than anywhere else. A certain percentage of human beings simply don’t see others as being as fully human as they are, and believe they have the right to do with others as they wish. We pray that artists and the “great” will be better than average morally and ethically. They are not.

    • John C. Randolph says

      I will just add that Faulkners “The Sound and the Fury”, which I was required to read in high school, is the very epitome of pretentious, unmitigated crap. Faulkner is nothing less than the Jackson Pollock of American literature.

      -jcr

  2. cheryl morris says

    During the mid 1960s, I was a child welfare social worker and court officer dealing with battered, abused, neglected children. Awareness of egregious behavior toward children was awakening, but, because there was no Internet, it was near-impossible to track problems from year to year, much-less over decades. Most of my children were battered or neglected [my caseload children] but, I also had victims of rape and molestation; I’m sure there were many more who were never brought to light, as it were. As a court officer, I had to try and get as much information for the court when dependency renewals were due; the original investigations were the responsibility of the Probation Department [I was in LA county]. We did not take mistreatment of children lightly and, that Walter was convicted in that era speaks volumes to me. That MZB dismissed the seriousness of what happened is unbelievable.

  3. Andrew Porter says

    Walter Breen was NOT “thrown out of a con for being a child sexual predator” — he was barred from the 1964 World Science Fiction Convention because of what the committee felt he had done to children. Google “Breen Boondoggle” for details. The actions plunged all science fiction fandom into war; repercussions are still felt today.

    • says

      Thank you for your comment.

      Actually, I was conflating aspects of the Breendoggle with something that happened later at BayCon (where he showed up and Moira called the cops). Easy to do since I wasn’t part of bay area fandom then and heard about the two events very close together in time.

      But you’re right about Pacificon II.

      Here’s a link with more info about what you’re talking about. http://fancyclopedia.org/breendoggle

    • says

      FYI, I may also have been remembering the full deposition, which I hadn’t re-read (until last night) for three years.

      23 MR. DOLAN: Q. Indeed you defended Walter’s

      24 expulsion from a convention on the basis of pedophilia,

      25 didn’t you?

      SHALLENBERGER REPORTING SERVICES – (415) 771-1988

      52

      DEPOSITION OF MARION ZIMMER BRADLEY – 8/10/98

      1 MR. BAKER: Objection. Argumentative.

      2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

  4. S says

    It was NOT “child rape apologia”!

    It was a deposition in which she seems, to me at least, to have been trying to finally tell the truth (to the courts, herself, her children, family members, and all future generations) about her husband’s relationships with young men, pre-pubescent boys, and her probably long-standing, systemic (for those of an age who like to talk so much about monolithic “rape culture(/s)”: remember, this is systemic, and the experiences of the involved parties are far more complicated than mere sociological systems of abuse but are comprised of a confluence of multiple personal, biological and otherwise “material”, as well as legal and political forces that took place in a different time and place that we living, today, here and now, unless and only if we were unfortunately involved, cannot fully comprehend and never will in such an urgent rush to judgment as this) series of personal and interpersonal denials of what happened during the period of her marriage to a rapist. As a person whose mother married a child rapist, was repeatedly sexually assaulted by family members and others, who lived with the shame and blame of persistent, intergenerational incest, I must tell you that this kind of puritanical witch-hunting has never really helped any of us. Indeed, it has been my experience that it only drives our real, lived experiences further underground, creating exactly the kind of environments of denial that perpetuate sexual abuse and the kind of co-dependent, enabling behaviours that allow these abuses to continue unabated in communities and families of which you are not (I hope), yourself, a part. While I support your raising of these issues in relation to MZB’s work, the tendencies to reduce, shame, and blame all of us (including MZB, now deceased), who were embedded in similar circumstances, is, frankly, not at all helpful. Rather than encouraging an open dialogue or any kind of real, interpersonal transparency, it seems to me your posts are driving us all to take sides (where there are only two sides, and these in a zero-sum game), and this approach is exactly what keeps us from any kind of real, lasting, sustainable change.

    Look up “apologia” and, please, retract or, at the very least, modify this inflammatory language that reduces a dead person’s, and her living families’, entire work and lived experiences to acts that Marion Zimmer Bradley did not, herself, commit. Her writing helped me as a child to see complexity where more simplistic moralisms failed. Her stories introduced a pre-pubscent child, already dealing with incest and other multi-farious forms of abuse, to the possibilities and complexities of human experience. She helped me see alternate realities, to explore fantasies where bigoted values that perpetuate inequalities could be challenged and overcome. The texts of her court depositions have never lessened this, however many decades later, and I resent your attempt to utterly disregard any positive effects (particularly those that have helped me survive and think and live and thrive) that MZB’s work has created for so very many of us. Yes, life is complicated, let’s celebrate that. It’s not a good vs. evil world we live in. Please stop trying to make it that for us.

    Marion Zimmer Bradley’s work needs to be recognized and remembered, not burned to cinders and thrown on a trash-heap so we can endlessly recycle these, hers and our own, mistakes.

    • says

      Thank you for your comment.

      First, I’m really sorry that anyone would be so horrible, and my sympathies for your suffering.

      Second, my piece was not intended to stand alone. It was a response to the Tor piece. That’s since been taken down, but I’d personally rather they’d updated it to include the complexity of her life.

      Third, I’d be the last person who asked people to ban problematic works or not read problematic people. I have a post I need to finish on this subject. Sigh. Sadly, it may have to wait a few weeks because of other commitments.

      I don’t believe people are all good or all bad, and I believe there are things to learn from many problematic people (but I also believe that people should figure out where their own lines in the sand are).

      I’m glad that MZB’s work was helpful to you, and nothing I say should take that away from you.

      I really need to respond to the rest of your comment, but it’s almost 1 am, and I’d need to do it when I’m more awake, because I want to re-read the depositions first.

  5. S says

    I realize it was almost 1 AM at the time of your response so I’m trying desperately to give you the benefit of the doubt, because, at first blush, your tone seemed really arrogant, patronizing, and condescending to me at this particular moment, however we may be in a similar time zone. I hope I’m misreading you. Please allow me to explain my reactions to your post and read my, likely reactionary, responses in the most collegiate manner possible. These are very important, (as you say:) “problematic”, and personal (AKA political) issues for me, so I’d like to begin by explaining what, I hope, is my mis-reading of your text.

    “Thank you for your comment.”

    This seems boiler-plate and condescending in light of what I said.

    “First, I’m really sorry that anyone would be so horrible, and my sympathies for your suffering.”

    Well, first, it wasn’t anyone who was “horrible”. It (if that’s what we’re calling a large portion of my life) is actually more complicated than that. I’m talking to you about multi-generational incest and you’re expressing “sympathies” for my “suffering”. Maybe you’re not getting a few things that I expressed, or maybe I wasn’t explicit enough.

    Like, for instance, it’s not just “me”. Or just any one person, victim or abuser. It’s literally a system of people and ideas and acts of aggression, sexual and otherwise, along with a tremendous amount of suppression (and repression) of any acknowledgment of the aforementioned in my VERY LARGE family that has been, for a time longer than my life, been riddled with incest. I’m sure you didn’t mean to sound dismissive, but expressing condolences in such a staid manner to experiences it seems you haven’t any personal experience with is pretty distancing, not very empathetic, and seems to be reducing me and mine to a mere victim status, one to which it appears you cannot relate. If that’s the case, you probably shouldn’t be expositing on these things without some deeper involvement. Just my opinion.

    “Second, my piece was not intended to stand alone. It was a response to the Tor piece. That’s since been taken down, but I’d personally rather they’d updated it to include the complexity of her life.”

    Well, yes, we probably agree about that, at least in part. I guess one of the ways where I feel we disagree is that it seems to me you (and you’re not alone in this, there are many others who) feel the need to overwrite the vast majority of her work (which is TREMENDOUS) with constant reminders about her pedophile ex-husband that implicate MZB in ways that none of us can pin down in any meaningful, productive way as far as I can see.

    “Third, I’d be the last person who asked people to ban problematic works or not read problematic people. I have a post I need to finish on this subject. Sigh. Sadly, it may have to wait a few weeks because of other commitments.”

    Well, yes, take all the time you need, but please recognize you didn’t hesitate to knock a commemoration of an earlier feminist’s quite substantial work in the field of speculative fiction. My experience of the word “problematic” is that this is an academic term from English literary criticism that has infiltrated the vulgar argot of online social justice warriors with little sense of its nod to nuance. Instead, “problematic” has come to mean, quite simply, “bad”, one half of a binary in desperate need of TNT exploding.

    “I don’t believe people are all good or all bad, and I believe there are things to learn from many problematic people (but I also believe that people should figure out where their own lines in the sand are).”

    Uh-huh, but you are reifying the notion of a good/bad dichotomy both in your more direct language and in your metaphorical, and quite war-like “lines in the sand.” Rest assured, I am quite clear about my own personal boundaries, but my experiences have perhaps led me to recognize, if not always respect, how very blurry, difficult, and often externally-imposed the sand lines can be for myself and others. It is my sense this realization has not yet occurred to you when it comes to the topics of inter- and concomitantly extra-familial sexual abuse.

    “I’m glad that MZB’s work was helpful to you, and nothing I say should take that away from you.”

    Again, I don’t know a nice way to say this right now so I’m just going to be blunt: your response here comes across as patronizing. I’m an adult who has lived a few decades past my family’s abuse, so I don’t need, nor am I seeking, your approval for my reading of MZB’s work and how it was or was not “helpful” to me. I’m not looking for warm and fuzzy hugs across the internetz to make it all better. They haven’t and likely won’t. I’ve found my own hard-won peace with my experiences and am trying to share with you the insights I’ve had in the process as it relates to what I feel is your defaming of Marion Zimmer Bradley and her writing. That’s all.

    “I really need to respond to the rest of your comment, but it’s almost 1 am, and I’d need to do it when I’m more awake, because I want to re-read the depositions first.”

    Well, again, I’m not trying to be an ass here, but this also seems patronizing. You can read all the depositions you want but you’re valuing court records over the rest of life as far as I can tell. I could give you all the transcripts of what little has been told about my family’s crimes and we can argue each other into our graves over fine-tuned interpretations and it wouldn’t matter one whit to me, TBH, because I KNOW that what the courts transcribed doesn’t begin to capture our lives, what happened to each of us, how we processed and continue to process it.

    Nonetheless, if you want to argue over deposition quotes and their relevance to any present or future recognition of Marion Zimmer Bradley’s writings, I guess I’m game. As ever, I’m willing to be convinced, even while I admit having already arrived at what I believe is an at least somewhat educated opinion. Like I said, I do appreciate your raising the subject in a general way; I just do not appreciate at all the effect it has had so far.

    • says

      This is no comparison to what you went through, but I was battered by my stepmother with a cast iron skillet, and my father beat me until I was 19. My mother, who was a social worker, didn’t fight to wrest me from that because I said I wanted to stay, and I held that against her for many years. I desperately feared loss of status with my father.

      So I’m well and truly aware how much a background like that can screw one up. I can’t imagine adding a family system of incest to the mix. Like you, I’ve had to make my own hard-won peace with what happened.

      I’m a very direct speaker who’s sometimes brusque, and sometimes that comes across as patronizing or condescending, but it genuinely wasn’t intended that way.

      Rather than respond to the rest, I’d actually rather go on to the deposition, which I re-read in its entirety before going to bed last night and have just re-read this morning.

      In summary: I think you’re being entirely too charitable to Ms. Bradley.

      First, the depositions happened in context. It’s not like MZB wrote a deathbed confession here. She was required to answer by the court. Because it was a civil case, she was required to be honest, even to the point of self-incrimination.

      Stephen Goldin, whose site the files are on, is Ken Smith’s stepfather. The lawsuit, filed initially by Mary Mason, Ken Smith’s mother, was filed against MZB and Elisabeth Waters as defendants for negligence. Note that this is ten years after Breen’s guilty plea and after he’s served his three years of probation.

      Marion Zimmer Bradley and Elisabeth Waters countersued, claiming that Mary Mason knew about the molestation. In other words, MZB claimed she shouldn’t have to pay (or should have to pay less) because Mary endangered her child. Which, when that hit me in full last night, I damn near threw up.

      The depositions were taken while those countersuits were going on, so I don’t see it as the sort of confession you’re seeing. It was an evil that she’d rather not talk about.

      Q. Do you know if Walter was incapable of giving oral sex to minor boys?

      A. I have no idea. I know nothing at all about oral sex. I broke up both my own marriages over it.

      Q. What was that last part?

      A. I said I broke up both my own marriages over it.

      What we know from Moira is that MZB considered herself a lesbian, and from her own words wasn’t into oral sex. She lived with her long-time partner, Lisa, for the last 22 years of her life.

      Also from her own words, she knew Breen was impotent and she didn’t believe that he was therefore capable of molesting children. Which speaks to an internalized culture of the only real sex is penis-in-vagina, or in the case of gay men, anal sex, because she apparently found oral sex (at least with men) too awful. From reading her depositions, I think she literally didn’t think about oral sex with Breen. So therefore it didn’t happen with kids, either.

      If you re-read her entire depositions in that light, it sounds very much like a woman who was part of one of the classic family systems of sexual abuse: Breen stopped pestering MZB for oral sex because he was getting it elsewhere, thus she thought everything was fine.

      Except, you know, it wasn’t.

      Q. Okay. So at that time it was your belief that a 13-year-old child was perfectly able to make their own decisions regarding sexual contact with adults?

      A. Oh, really, a-13-year-old child? I wasn’t a child at 13, were you?

      MR. DOLAN: Q. Do you have the question in mind?

      A. I never thought that I was very intelligent, but this — my opinion at the moment was that 13-year-old young people were quite old enough to decide what they wanted to do.

      And, later (note: I’ve removed some of the lawyer cross-talk here to make the point clearer):

      Q. I’m going to show you some pictures, and I’m going to ask you if you can identify anybody in these pictures.

      A. No. Let me see here. No. At first I thought this was a picture of David in his teens, but it’s not.

      Q. To your knowledge, have you seen a picture of that boy before in the pictures? Have you ever seen that boy?

      A. Not to my memory, no.

      Q. Looking at the pictures of the young boy in those pictures, do you think that boy is of the age to make decisions whether or not he should be having sex with adults?

      MR. DOLAN: Q. Okay. I’m just asking you, does it appear the ages of those young boys in those pictures are of the age to be making decisions as to whether they should be having sex with adults?

      MR. WALKER: Just a second. We don’t even know what age that is.

      THE WITNESS: What I was going to say is that I’m not a psychological counselor or a school teacher.

      MR. DOLAN: Q. Right. You indicated, though, that you think children at a particular age are able to make decisions whether or not they’re going to have sex with adults. That was your personal belief; right?

      THE WITNESS: I would say that my personal opinions are not at issue in this matter.

      MR. DOLAN: Q. Okay. I would disagree with you, and I would ask you to answer my question.

      A. I would say that you are entitled to your opinion, sir.

      Q. I’m asking your opinion.

      A. My opinion is my opinion.

      MR. BAKER: She’s already answered it.

      MR. DOLAN: She’s refusing to answer the question.

      When presented with a picture of a kid she initially mistakes for her own son, she refuses to answer, less than a year before her death, if that boy is too young to have sex with Walter Breen.

      That’s not my opinion. That’s the record.

      • says

        Anyone wanting to know anything about my mother’s crimes may ask me. Unprosecuted is not the same as innocent. I’ve been silent long enough. I will quote what my mother said to me about my father’s young victims:

        “they deserved what they got.”–Marion Zimmer Bradley

        Imagine a woman saying that about raped boys. And wonder WHY? HOW? She was a mother of SONS! Is that really a woman to idolize?

        She was JEALOUS and not concerned. This is why I could not convince her a crime was being committed and I had to go to the police myself.

        And I would prefer my brother’s privacy be respected, but I assure you, the villain in our lives is our mother. Not Walter. He committed horrible crimes, yes, but he loved us. He loved us. I do not think she loved anything or anyone.

        • Mommacrow says

          Following all of this I am astonished that very little of the outrage seems to be centered on what your mother actually did, the horrible crimes she committed to her own child. Not that her complicity in your step father’s crimes is a small matter, of course. But by far the most terrifying, brutal and sickening part of this hideous history is your account of the abuse you suffered at her hands. I wept upon reading it, and pulled my young son close to me and kissed his blessedly safe and protected brow. Nothing I could say to you would be adequate, but you do have the respect of another who was damaged.

        • John C. Randolph says

          Moira, I met your mother only once, at a Darkover con many years ago. We had a conversation about what a nasty bit of work L. Ron Hubbard was, and I gave her a brief rundown of the battle between Hubbard’s nut-cult and their critics on the net.

          It’s fortunate that I had no idea at the time either about her own crimes, or her role in protecting your father from the consequences of his crimes, or I might have ended up in jail for taking a shoe to her head.

          -jcr

  6. Andy says

    What I find “problematic” is the assumption that someone who has a terrible story of multi-generational abuse gets to be an authority on whether anyone else should be judged for their complicity in abuse. And assuming that people use “problematic” to mean “bad” when they mean “it’s complicated, there are good things, and complex bad things to unwind.” Nobody uses it in a binary sense, that’s a straw man, and yes, S is being too charitable and showing a particular bias in favor of the author to the exclusion of criticism, erecting yet another straw man that pointing out these horrible facts that were dragged out and not offered as some sort of virtuous confession is an attempt to censor or destroy somebody’s entire body of work. No, it’s more complicated than that.

    • says

      I was challenging the tentpoles holding up a survivor’s safe space. While I might have a problem with disbelief from random people, I feel far more compassionate about S’s circumstances.

      • M says

        Blessings upon you, your family, your people for your compassion.

        You have many talents and gifts, but compassion is the most beautiful.

  7. says

    I’ve been told, in almost so many words, “Why stir up this mess and defame someone who can’t defend herself? She’s dead, she can’t hurt anyone any more.”

    Think of it as a cautionary tale. There are altogether too many people who think someone is trustworthy simply because they’re famous/talented/rich/powerful and, because of this, the parents will trust that person far beyond the normal bounds. Marion (and by extension, Walter) is one example. Another was Michael Jackson. By telling this story, Mary and I hope to instill a little a little more skepticism into parents and maybe save future children from becoming victims of sexual predators.

    As for the Faulkner quote, which I only partially agree with, I believe he was talking about a writer being ruthless about getting his work written and published, and doing anything to achieve that goal. Marion’s ignoring the sexual abuse of children, or of abusing her own, had nothing whatsoever to do with getting her work published. She could just as easily have been a decent person in her private life.

    I am philosophically opposed to blacklisting. But the way I look at it, there are zillions of decent, non-abusive authors in this world, writing more books and stories than I’ll ever have a chance to read in my lifetime. My resources of time and money are limited, so I choose to spend them on the works of those decent authors. Why should I waste them on writers who aren’t decent people?

    • says

      Thank you very much for having the depositions and stuff online for so many years, Stephen.

      I agree: I’m philosophically opposed to blacklisting (or shunning). But I do prefer to read works by writers I can admire.

    • Tavella says

      Stephen, I’d also like to express my appreciation for keeping the documents available. I know that when I used to mention it to people the first reaction was disbelief, often followed by minimizing, and it has been very useful to have sworn under penalty of law documents to point to, to hear about it in MZB’s own words and the words of people around her.

      • says

        To Chris and Tavella,

        I’m pleased to do it. Even though Marion won’t be hurting kids from now on, she does serve as an object lesson that must never be forgotten. The worst thing we can do for future generations is to lose these hard-won lessons. Anyone who tries to minimize what she did, even if she also did other things that were good, makes it possible for other people to get away with this tomorrow. Some things cannot, must not, be forgiven.

        • Chris Starfire says

          Stephen, agreed. And never, ever forgotten, no matter how hard certain people fight to have it hushed up and glossed over. (Fortunately a very small minority this time, at least as far as I’ve seen.)

          I hope your son is as safe and well as possible as this hits the public eye. He and all your family are in my thoughts.

  8. tripptales says

    [I very rarely alter comments, but this one was WAY too dark, and I don't want my blog to become trigger central. I've deleted context about the commenter's elderly mother, who's been abused for years. I'm so sorry for the both of you, and hope you may find some healing. Also, you don't need to forgive anyone.]

    I don’t HAVE any words other than really strong swearer words. There s only 1 person in my entire life who I HATE And that is the man who hurt her since she was 17. Please, do not tell me how I need to let it go and forgive that b……., not for him, but for me! I have known this Sicko for 54 years. He Is underserving of oxygen. How can any HUMAN BIENG do this???? Tomorrow morning I may regret this outburst, but for now, I know you guys are all my safe spot.

Trackbacks

  1. […] The bomb dropped. Dierdre Moen promptly responded to the laudatory Tor.com piece with a blog on the truth behind Marion Zimmer Bradley’s sexual openness, and just how far it would go. “Q. And to your knowledge, how old was […]

  2. […] them here, but there are various posts at Deirdre Saoirse Moen’s blog: begin with “Marion Simmer Bradley Gave Us New Perspectives, All Right“, its title mirroring that of an article at Tor.com, “Marion Zimmer Bradley Gave us New […]

  3. […] Moira. Many people have been writing about this extensively in the past few weeks, including Deirdre Saoirse Moen on her blog and Natalie Luhrs at Radish Reviews, triggered by an author profile from Tor on the […]