Editing Joanna Russ (section)

==Critical writings==
The late 1960s and 1970s marked the beginnings of feminist SF scholarship—a field of inquiry that was all but created single-handedly by Russ, who wrote many essays on feminism and science fiction that appeared in journals such as ''[[College English]]'' and ''[[Science Fiction Studies]]''.<ref name="Yaszek, Lisa 2009">Yaszek, Lisa. "A History of One's Own: Joanna Russ and the Creation of a Feminist SF Tradition". In {{harvp|Mendlesohn|2009|pages=31–47}}.</ref> She also contributed 25 reviews to ''[[The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction]]'', covering more than 100 books of all genres.<ref name="James, Edward 2009">James, Edward. "Russ on Writing Science Fiction and Reviewing It". In {{harvp|Mendlesohn|2009|pages=19–30}}.</ref> In their article "Learning the 'Prophet Business': The Merril-Russ Intersection," Newell and Tallentire described Russ as an "intelligent, tough-minded reviewer who routinely tempered harsh criticism with just the sort of faint praise she handed out to [[Judith Merril]]," who in turn was among the foremost editors and critics in American science fiction in the late 1960s. Russ was also described as a fearless, incisive, and radical person, whose writing was often characterized as acerbic and angry.<ref>{{cite book |last=Freedman |first=Carl Howard |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s1iF6n6kT-UC&q=russ+incisive |title=Critical Theory and Science Fiction |date=2013-09-01 |publisher=[[Wesleyan University Press]] |isbn=9780819574541 |location= |pages=129–131}}</ref>

Russ was acclaimed as one of science fiction's most revolutionary and accomplished writers. Helen Merrick claimed that Russ is an inescapable figure in science fiction history. [[James Tiptree Jr.]] once commented on how Russ could be an "absolute delight" one minute, but then she "rushes out and bites my ankles with one sentence."<ref>Merrick, Helen. "The Female 'Atlas' of Science Fiction? Russ, Feminism and the SF Community".  In {{harvp|Mendlesohn|2009|pages=48–63}}.</ref> For example, Russ criticized [[Ursula K. Le Guin]]'s 1969 ''[[The Left Hand of Darkness]]'', which won both the 1969 [[Nebula Award for Best Novel|Nebula]] and 1970 [[Hugo Award for Best Novel|Hugo]] awards for best science fiction novel, arguing that gender discriminations that permeated science fiction by men showed up just as frequently in science fiction by women. According to Russ, Le Guin's novel represented these stereotypes.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hubble |first=Nick |date=December 24, 2020 |title=The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin |url=https://vector-bsfa.com/2020/12/24/review-the-left-hand-of-darkness-by-ursula-k-le-guin/ |access-date=2024-09-10 |website=[[Vector (journal)|Vector]]}}</ref>

Russ felt that science fiction gives something to its readers that cannot be easily acquired anywhere else. She maintained that science should be accurate, and seriousness is a virtue.<ref name="James, Edward 2009"/> She insisted on the unique qualities of her chosen genre, maintaining that science fiction shared certain qualities with art and its flexibility compared to other forms writing. Russ was also interested in demonstrating the unique potentials of women science fiction writers.<ref name="Yaszek, Lisa 2009"/> As her career moved into its second decade in the 1980s, she started to worry about reviewing standards. She once said, "The reviewer's hardest task is to define standards."<ref name="James, Edward 2009"/>

Russ's reviewing style was characterized by logic. She was attacked by readers because of her harsh reviews of [[Stephen R. Donaldson]]'s ''[[Lord Foul's Bane]]'' (1977) and [[Joy Chant]]'s ''[[The Grey Mane of Morning]]'' (1977).<ref>''The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction'', february 1979</ref> She organized attacks into these seven categories, taken directly from the cited article:<ref name="James, Edward 2009"/>
*Don't shove your politics into your reviews. Just review the books. "I will," Russ said, "when authors keep politics out of their books."
*You don't prove what you say; you just assert it. "There is no way to 'prove' anything in aesthetic or moral matters."
*Then your opinion is purely subjective. "I might be subjective, but not arbitrary. It is based on a critic's whole education."
*Everyone's entitled to his [sic] own opinion. "Writing is a craft too, and it can be judged. And some opinions are worth a good deal more than others."
*I knew it. You're a snob. "Science fiction is a small world that often doesn't look outside of its own bounds."
*You're vitriolic too. "The only way to relieve oneself of the pain that has to be endured by reading every line is to express one's opinions vividly, precisely, and compactly."
*Never mind all that stuff. Just tell me what I'd enjoy reading. "Bless you, what makes you think I know?"

However, she felt guilty about dire and frank criticism. She apologized for her harsh words on [[Lloyd Biggle]]'s ''[[The Light That Never Was]]'' (1972) by saying, "It's narsty to beat up on authors who are probably starving to death on turnip soup (''[[ghoti]]'' soup) but critics ought to be honest."<ref name="James, Edward 2009"/>