Heireses of Russ as a concept

After finishing Edmund White's "City Boy" and "Boy's Own Story" trilogy, as  pillars of classic gay literature, focused on the eternal pull between "the life" and respectability, still as relevant as ever if in different forms, I think I need to read Russ.  Really read Russ.

I read her as a teen and early twentysomething, all Gen X and wanting more- more "satisfying" narrative in the lesbian storyline, and more nuanced feminism, more analysis of race, class, and gender as well as sexism.  Conscious of Sheila Jeffries and the 70s/80s hatred of the transsexual, as conceptual punching bag vs. reality/person, and where Russ and her comrades fell in with that.  I reread some essays and stories about a year ago and realized I didn't really have time to read Russ in any real way then.

But I keep coming across the "Heiresses of Russ" antho title and getting fidgety about that title.  I mean, are the heiresses of Russ lesbian writers, broadly speaking, or writers of lesbian-focused stories, or, as I tend to rant in my head when I see the title, angry feminists who can't just get along and jump on the QUILTBAG wagon without screaming bloody murder. 

Then I think 'heiresses,' 'legacies' in the college admissions sense, not 'envoys,' 'those who carry on the mission,' or evolution of the genetic/ ideological /methodological line.  Or simply "all you lesbians are alike,  aren't you?" In the way a family name can replace lesbians.

There are a lot of ways to parse "heiresses"- which is good, and this is not a criticism of the antho.  Just the title, because it's itchy, the way people saying "so and so is the next Octavia Butler" is itchy and fraught.

I need to reread Russ to think about this question.  The defining characteristic in her work that remains in my head all these years later is her big sword-  righteous anger- and her uncompromising approach, yet willingness to listen... until she cuts off your head.  Brit Mandelo's "We Wuz Pushed" did not change this picture in my head.  Which means I need to revisit the actual texts, firsthand, to see what's really going on there vs. what I remember with my twentysomething biases.

Is it fair to call any writer right now who is not inflaming (or flaming) people "Russ's heiress"?  Is someone like "It takes hate" or The Angry Black Woman more appropriate to anoint?  Is anyone writing razor blade criticism in the guise of fiction these days?  Sarah Schulman's "

Is anger the wrong measure/ variable?  I feel a need to look and see.  What persists- merely a name representing "the visible presence of lesbian SF," or the underlying politics, which then and now divides self-identified lesbians, much less the umbrella, such as the QUILTBAG concept strains toward.

Was the driving force, and thus, legacy of Russ the same force that ripped apart the Lesbian Conference back in the 80s and split Butch Voices into Voices vs. Nation in the aughts, or was she a foremother for "all y'all lady writers who, you know, write about likin' the ladies"?  I really am not sure.  It's time to find out instead of just ranting in my head...

Added: This makes me think about how there is no strong critical voice (especially one wrangling in a historically aware and engaged in the larger community politics of the present kind of way, as oppossd to just pushing their same personal opinions around in discussing different current issues, i.e., blogging vs. developing a line of inquiry and critical stance that is responsive to peer review in a larger way than just commenting on comments still within the one-person's blog format-  part of a larger conversation...

Which comes back around to the history, and present reality on the 'nets and off, of the specifically lesbian and female umbrella queer term of the moment inability to have a civil yet lively, honest conversation.  It's no coincidence the current stand-in for a critical forum and body of critical inquiry is "here, read this, and this, let's list everything out there, and just make more lists and leave it up to the usual non-lesbian/ queer reviewers to engage with the ideas in a critical way." 

'Cos criticism gets everyone all itchy and scratchy.  (The reviews of Gentrification of the Mind by Sarah Schulman that dwell on minor points and/or don't critically engage in the issues of history but just say "she's just wrong about our history, I don't need to explain why, it's obvious" come to mind.)  The art of argument got lost somewhere in the wake of decades of trashing as movement tactic cum implosion.  After Russ quieted down, I think.  (late 90s)

Anyway...  Thinking, thinking, this is what I am thinking about this morning as a distraction from the Powerpoint presentation on regulations in my head... More later.

The photo is a wild turkey, but she seemed sort of peacock like, seemed appropriate.  She's the neighborhood's wandering spinster...