Of course you’re right about Mervyn, though his group is totally dedicated to prevention of the Hellgates re-openiing, and thereby maintainance of the status quo, so naturally, he’s not likely to change much.

I was shocked by Connie’s transformation though part of me sort of envies it. As the new-her, she was very healthy, seemed content, had a long and apparently fulfilling life without much extra baggage. Not bad really. Certainly she lost the things that made her “Connie” in the bargain, which I suppose is why it doesn’t really work for most and why you feel like she committed “suicide.” Also, it helped that she lived in a fairly tolerant society, as her lifestyle might have branded her elsewhere. Actually, in some of the other Chalker series there are women that get transformed into similar types of characters. In the book I’m on now, GOD Inc. #2, Brandy Horowitz sort of transforms into a Connie-type but unfortunately is forced into prostitution, though I feel confident that she will find her way out of it soon. Chalker seems as preoccupied with these beautiful, schizoid, super-sexed women as much as he is with the paradasical Garden-of-Eden style islands as temporary respites.

I think that you’re also right when you write that Chalker uses a lot of psychology. Another thing that I find fascinating about his books in general is that they’re not especially interested in empire building, war or the pursuit of power as an end in itself. That is refreshingly different from a lot of other writing in this genre.

What did you think about the two Well World books without Marvra and Nathan Brazil that were underwater?

I also really liked the Chalker fantasy series, the Dancing Gods. Have you read these?

I love the way Chalker got psychology into everything. (at least everything I’ve read) and how even such fantastical stories relate to current society.
I honestly thought my husband and I were his only fans anymore- no one knows what I’m talking about

Thank goodness that you’ve contacted me! I’ve been Chalker-obsessed for ages without anyone to comment about it with!

I do think that you’re right to an extent that Chalkerian villains have more hang-ups about sexuality and, ultimately they seem to “pay for it” in the end. Though it is kind of striking that it is mainly “heroines” (at least in Flux and Anchor) that go through endless bodily transformations, degrading situations etc. while the “heros” sort of stay the same. Also to me it often seems one way: if a male character changes, he never becomes “male” again. Female characters can transiently become male or have male sexual characteristics but they are either a kind of “third sex” or female in a matter of thinking. Do you know what I mean?

In some of the other series, you see more men changing to women and vice versa, though I still struggle to get a handle on what it means. Have you read the Well World trilogy that Chalker published in the Nineties? To me the whole book is about problems with oppression of women. At the very end, Nathan Brazil, who had never considered the issue seriously until his conversation with Mavra Chang in which she complains about how she was “stuck” at home with women in traditional ancient societies while Nathan went partying with the guys, makes that boo-boo and forgets to reset his human body back to a man and the last we see of him is he has become a woman from Miami or something–possibly for centuries to come. What do you think the message is here? Is Chalker teasing Brazil or what?

What other Chalker novels do you enjoy? I’m reading book 2 of GOD, Inc. right now.