Re: Warriors of Love
 

From a recent review of JANE here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/sho...rue&page=1
"It is truely inspiring and eye opening read, and a journey I think we should all go through."

And another here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/sho...rue&page=1
"This novel has swagger. Post-apocalyptic fantasy exploring a hyper-feminist society through the youth and eroticism of beaucrat Jane. P.F.Jeffery’s writing bounces with intelligence, charisma, and humor (an absolute pleasure to read)- but still finds the time to critically analyze itself, and feminity, and sex, and love, in a very gentle and confident way."

In recent months I have been reading private copies of two novels later in the 'Warriors of Love' duodecology: Daisy's Day and Daisy's Month.
These are uniquely charming. Magnetising.

JANE, meanwhile, can only speak for herself. With that critically slow-burning fuse of the first Chomu Press novel in the series.

Re: Warriors of Love
 

Much work has now been done on preparing Volume 2 Margaret for publication... but perhaps I should check with the prospective publisher before saying too much about that.

Re: Warriors of Love
 

As I implied yesterday above, the slow-burning fuse of your duodecology of novels looks as if it is now approaching well-deserved ignition...!

Re: Warriors of Love
 

I hope so!

Re: Warriors of Love
 

I've now written more than eighty (preliminary draft) pages of the twelfth and final volume Daisy's Year. I wonder whether I will live to see the book published.

Re: Warriors of Love
 

Here's an issue on which I'd welcome other people's views. It's to do with language, rather than the storyline.

The twelve Warriors of Love novels cover almost a century during which there are great changes of several kinds. The most important of those changes is the introduction and spread of gynogenesis, whereby two women are able to conceive a child (who will always be female). The final volume is set in the year 74-75, by which time there will be very few men under the age of fifty, and none in important positions. I wonder, in this context, what will become of the feminine -ess termination.

I think that we might see three things:

1. The decay and disappearance of some -ess words. A clear example, I think, is 'manageress'. As opposed to 'manager', 'manageress' is a bit of a mouthful. If all managers were female, I can see no reason why the -ess form would be retained. It might have been popular in the early years of the Empire, with a message of 'I manage by right of being female' but (I suspect) would be virtually extinct before Year 50.

2. Some -ess words might be preferred as easier to say than the masculine or general forms. A clear example is 'Empress', which is shorter and rolls off the tongue more easily than 'emperor'. Perhaps 'actress' would be retained as marginally easier to say than 'actor'.

3. The -ess suffix might be retained as a honourific, rather than female, suffix. This would provide an additional reason to retain 'Empress'. Here are my thoughts on other examples:

a. 'Goddess'. Goddesses, of course, are mightier than mere gods. It could be that a dryad (the spirit of a single tree), for example, might come to be regarded as a god -- whereas the gestalt of many trees would be a forest goddess.

b. 'Priestess'. Perhaps a young woman, emerging from theological college, might become a priest. (A status equivalent, perhaps, to a curate in the Church of England). Subsequently, she would be eligible to be initiated as a fully-fledged priestess, who might have responsibility for the spiritual wellbeing of an entire community.

c. 'Princess'. Perhaps women and girls closely related to the Empresses might continue to hold the title of princess, whereas those a little more distantly related might become mere princes.

d. 'Actress'. Although 'actress' may roll off the tongue a little easier than 'actor', might the word fall is disuse because an actress per se doesn't have the high status implied by other surviving -ess terminated words?

******

I'd welcome, as I said, other people's views on this issue.

Re: Warriors of Love
 

An interesting subject. "Less is more," an interesting dictum, especially with the current age's internet splurge of stuff, books galore, millions of books, electronic and print-on-demand, etc etc.

I think the -ess suffix for femininity is a pretty one that would be a shame to avoid. Although there are exceptions, like 'manageress', as you say, that is a bit of a mouthful. (I think the "-trix" suffix ugly by comparison).

Is this tied up with calling 'chairwoman' or 'chairman' as 'chair''? Is today's so-called political correctness relevant? Just throwing that in.

"'Goddesses, of course, are mightier than mere gods."
Even if that is a truism within the world of 'Warriors of Love', the use of 'of course' there needs to be discussed, at least, rather than letting a 'truism' pass, without reaping any wisdom from questioning a 'truism'.

Individual 'god' deities as a 'goddess' gestalt, you mention, is an interesting observation. I know your 'Warriors of Love' duodecology teems with mind-stretching observations as well as picaresque adventure and cultural vision. Fast-moving, at times, deliciously slow, at others. Thanks for that.

Re: Warriors of Love
 

I think that it is difficult to square the womb from which the universe emerged with male divinity. Take, if you will, what I believe to be the start of St John's Gospel. (I own many books, but the Bible is not amongst them, otherwise I'd check.) If memory serves, it goes somewhat in this manner: "In the beginning was the word..." How much more sense would this make, if we substitute "womb" for "word", and alter "God" to "the goddess"?

Re: Warriors of Love
 

Perhaps because of its bizarre angularity, I rather like the '-trix' suffix. Possibly another attraction, for me, is the irregular plural '-trices'. If it were generally applicable to words ending in 'x', we would be putting things in bocices, perhaps, which might be pronounced like 'boxes', but has quite a different look. Also, I rather like the letter 'x', which is more of an ornamental embellishment to the alphabet that a utilitarian necessity. A box could perfectly well be a bocks, but it would be sad day that the substitution was made. People (not just me) seem to like the 'x' so well that it is assigned the additional duties of signifying a kiss, marking the spot on pirate treasure maps, and so on.

All of that said, I use (I'm sure) the suffix '-trix' very little in The Warriors of Love. In fact, there is (I believe) only one pre-existing '-trix' word to be found in the entire series. That is 'genetrix'. It means 'female parent' (the male form is 'genitor'). The word isn't my invention, but seems handy for a female parent who is not the mother. I think though, that the word is only written in full as 'genetrix' a time or two in the entire series, and not at all until Volume 11. Contracted as 'genny' the word is important and used frequently from Volume 3 Daisy onwards. Daisy's genny is Modesty Clay.

There is also a '-trix' neologism which first appears in Volume 2 Margaret, but possibly doesn't figure in any of the later volumes. That is 'Surretrix' which means the same as our 'lesbian'. An association with Surrey, rather than Lesbos, is appropriate for these books.

Re: Warriors of Love
 

I've been thinking about this. When I was much younger, I liked the idea of creation through the word. Perhaps that was because, as a writer, the word was my chosen creative vehicle. (It is another question whether the word chose me, or I chose the word, or whether there was an interweaving of the two.) Now, the idea of creation through the word strikes me as fundamentally wrong because it presents creativity/creation as clean, orderly and logical. (On the logical aspect, one might consider the relationship between logos and logic.) It seems to me, with an increasing experience of the world, that creation is always messy, chaotic and irrational. Increasingly, I wouldn't care for it to be otherwise.