Books by women: What do they offer that books by men don't?
ConversazioniGirlybooks
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
1Cancellato
My question was inspired by a conversation on LolaWalser's new Reading Books by Women group: https://www.librarything.com/topic/175821
I'm not sure I can answer my own question very well. Do women write better about some things? Do they write differently than men in some way? Are they more likely to write stories that appeal to women?
Maybe it's not a question that can be answered on a general level but comes down to particulars. I can't imagine a male Austen, Pym, Donoghue, Godden, or duMaurier.
I'm not sure I can answer my own question very well. Do women write better about some things? Do they write differently than men in some way? Are they more likely to write stories that appeal to women?
Maybe it's not a question that can be answered on a general level but comes down to particulars. I can't imagine a male Austen, Pym, Donoghue, Godden, or duMaurier.
2LolaWalser
I haven't read enough (and probably never will) to make any sort of "final" judgement, so, provisionally... regarding "male Austen", the question might be helped if we also asked could any other woman, say George Sand or Erica Jong, be "Austen". That is, how much is what makes Austen Austen due to her being female, and how much to her individuality?
4Cancellato
>3 Korrick: But don't men write as if they were human beings?
Let me complicate the original question:
The goal of feminist criticism is to promote gender equality in all areas of human endeavor, including literature. Therefore, all literature must be judged by whether it promotes gender equality. (Yes, I'm painting with a VERY broad brush here, but that's the gist of it.)
Is that a good goal?
And do women writers promote gender equality better than men writers?
Decades ago, during the early wave of feminist criticism, it was common to hear adherents in the academy say that women were better at writing about "women's issues" like childbirth, marriage, body image, birth control, divorce, elder care, etc.
Now that kind of comment sounds like a put-down, as if women should STICK to those topics because they were better at them. If indeed they are better at them. While women were busy giving voice to problems with gender equality, weren't men changing, too?
Have we reached a point where each individual writer has his/her own voice and unique perspectives such that the writer's gender no longer matters?
Let me complicate the original question:
The goal of feminist criticism is to promote gender equality in all areas of human endeavor, including literature. Therefore, all literature must be judged by whether it promotes gender equality. (Yes, I'm painting with a VERY broad brush here, but that's the gist of it.)
Is that a good goal?
And do women writers promote gender equality better than men writers?
Decades ago, during the early wave of feminist criticism, it was common to hear adherents in the academy say that women were better at writing about "women's issues" like childbirth, marriage, body image, birth control, divorce, elder care, etc.
Now that kind of comment sounds like a put-down, as if women should STICK to those topics because they were better at them. If indeed they are better at them. While women were busy giving voice to problems with gender equality, weren't men changing, too?
Have we reached a point where each individual writer has his/her own voice and unique perspectives such that the writer's gender no longer matters?
5LolaWalser
>3 Korrick:
I tend to agree--or, I agree that men tend to write women as less than human beings, especially historically (history of literature is also the history of misogyny) and still today in less than class-A stuff--genre, film, television... Unfortunately, gift itself doesn't seem to matter--Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and lots of others are gifted writers with appallingly cartoony and one-dimensional female characters. It would be satisfying if at least one could say that only mediocrities and hacks can't write women. No such luck.
Otoh, Tolstoy received lots of praise from women on his Anna, Flaubert famously publicly identified himself with his Emma (although I'm not clear on whether that was because she or he were so splendid), and, personally, I think all of Proust's characters are human beings. I couldn't have felt about or cried more over Marcel's grandmother than if she had been someone in "real life". And she was observed in her complete humanity, as a person distinct and separate from her adoring grandson, but never distinct and separate just because she was female and he male.
>4 nohrt4me2:
Literary and feminist theory are terra incognita to me so can't say anything on that account.
As to whether we've come to the point where author's gender doesn't matter--well, it would seem it simply does. Still. We've all heard, for instance, that boys/men do not care to pick up books with main female characters, that they refuse to identify with such characters, that they are even unlikely to try female authors in general. So to them it seems to matter very much.
Women, too, seem increasingly to want to see female characters in roles other than the traditional girlfriend/mother/helpmeet/backup-vocal and that sort of characterisation is likely to come more easily to female than male authors, if for no better reason than that traditional gender roles is what most of us are still raised with.
I tend to agree--or, I agree that men tend to write women as less than human beings, especially historically (history of literature is also the history of misogyny) and still today in less than class-A stuff--genre, film, television... Unfortunately, gift itself doesn't seem to matter--Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and lots of others are gifted writers with appallingly cartoony and one-dimensional female characters. It would be satisfying if at least one could say that only mediocrities and hacks can't write women. No such luck.
Otoh, Tolstoy received lots of praise from women on his Anna, Flaubert famously publicly identified himself with his Emma (although I'm not clear on whether that was because she or he were so splendid), and, personally, I think all of Proust's characters are human beings. I couldn't have felt about or cried more over Marcel's grandmother than if she had been someone in "real life". And she was observed in her complete humanity, as a person distinct and separate from her adoring grandson, but never distinct and separate just because she was female and he male.
>4 nohrt4me2:
Literary and feminist theory are terra incognita to me so can't say anything on that account.
As to whether we've come to the point where author's gender doesn't matter--well, it would seem it simply does. Still. We've all heard, for instance, that boys/men do not care to pick up books with main female characters, that they refuse to identify with such characters, that they are even unlikely to try female authors in general. So to them it seems to matter very much.
Women, too, seem increasingly to want to see female characters in roles other than the traditional girlfriend/mother/helpmeet/backup-vocal and that sort of characterisation is likely to come more easily to female than male authors, if for no better reason than that traditional gender roles is what most of us are still raised with.
6Cancellato
>5 LolaWalser: Yeah, I've heard that boys won't read books about girls, but I don't know how true it is. I'd like to see empirical evidence.
All's I have the fact that I used to work for the state library association, and legions of children's librarians will tell you there are plenty of boys who read Nancy Drew and similar series because they didn't know it was "for girls."
I also work with a lot of Millennials and we have an informal book club at work, and the men seem to read as many women as men. (Zoe Heller and Donna Tartt seems to be a favorite.) Gender doesn't seem to matter to them.
But the main question is what women bring to literature that men don't. Some feminist critics say the gender of the writer doesn't matter as long as the gender equity is there.
All's I have the fact that I used to work for the state library association, and legions of children's librarians will tell you there are plenty of boys who read Nancy Drew and similar series because they didn't know it was "for girls."
I also work with a lot of Millennials and we have an informal book club at work, and the men seem to read as many women as men. (Zoe Heller and Donna Tartt seems to be a favorite.) Gender doesn't seem to matter to them.
But the main question is what women bring to literature that men don't. Some feminist critics say the gender of the writer doesn't matter as long as the gender equity is there.
7southernbooklady
>5 LolaWalser: Women, too, seem increasingly to want to see female characters in roles other than the traditional girlfriend/mother/helpmeet/backup-vocal
It might be more a question of emphasis. Of regarding her life on it's own merits, not in contrast to the life expected of her. If a man decides to fly a plane solo across an ocean, no one is really wondering about his abandonment of his family, his rejection of the role of father, or husband, or provider. He doesn't need to justify his pursuit, his drive, his calling.
Even today, a woman does.
It might be more a question of emphasis. Of regarding her life on it's own merits, not in contrast to the life expected of her. If a man decides to fly a plane solo across an ocean, no one is really wondering about his abandonment of his family, his rejection of the role of father, or husband, or provider. He doesn't need to justify his pursuit, his drive, his calling.
Even today, a woman does.
8LolaWalser
>7 southernbooklady:
Yeah, that too. That attitude drives me bonkers. Men can want anything in the world--global domination, discovery of new species of butterfly or even just a family--but women can want only stuff somehow in relation to their "number one": men and babies. If not, they are abnormal.
Yeah, that too. That attitude drives me bonkers. Men can want anything in the world--global domination, discovery of new species of butterfly or even just a family--but women can want only stuff somehow in relation to their "number one": men and babies. If not, they are abnormal.
9southernbooklady
>8 LolaWalser: If not, they are abnormal
I don't know if you read biographies, but Megan Marshall's book Margaret Fuller: A New American Life is a very moving account of Fuller's life-long struggle against this very problem. A brilliant woman, even within her particular circle which included Emerson, the Peabody Sisters, the Alcotts, etc, she records often in her letters and journals of the stifling feeling she experienced, the constant pressure to smother her own potential under more acceptable and defined roles for women. It's really part biography, part exploration into Fuller's growing radicalism, fueled by her (justified) disappointments in the lack of vision and support from even her deepest friendships (again, Emerson). Marshall makes a good case for how a woman how battled social expectations so successfully, and accomplished so much, could still see herself as forever thwarted by what society will or will not accept from even a very accomplished woman.
It all felt alarmingly familiar.
I don't know if you read biographies, but Megan Marshall's book Margaret Fuller: A New American Life is a very moving account of Fuller's life-long struggle against this very problem. A brilliant woman, even within her particular circle which included Emerson, the Peabody Sisters, the Alcotts, etc, she records often in her letters and journals of the stifling feeling she experienced, the constant pressure to smother her own potential under more acceptable and defined roles for women. It's really part biography, part exploration into Fuller's growing radicalism, fueled by her (justified) disappointments in the lack of vision and support from even her deepest friendships (again, Emerson). Marshall makes a good case for how a woman how battled social expectations so successfully, and accomplished so much, could still see herself as forever thwarted by what society will or will not accept from even a very accomplished woman.
It all felt alarmingly familiar.
10Korrick
I'm a Millennial. The majority of my acquaintances of both genders bash the main character of Chopin's 'The Awakening' for being a bad mother. That book is my litmus test, and so long as the popular reaction continues to be a poor one, books by women will offer something books by men don't.
11Cancellato
>10 Korrick: It's been a long time since I read The Awakening, but it's an interesting litmus test.
I wonder what your friends would say about the main character in Where'd You Go, Bernadette, whose predicament is similar, though the treatment, time period, and outcomes are much different.
One way to define gender equity is to insist that the full range of both male and female behavior, is presented, to resist making the women all alike. I find the warrior princesses sometimes as tiresome as the pretty and good mommies. Perhaps the horrors you find in Zoe Heller's novels or the narrator in Gillespie and I need to be in the mix as well. Or the spectacularly awful Zenia in Margaret Atwood's The Robber Bride. Lorrie Moore's review perhaps speaks to this idea: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/moore-atwood.html
I wonder what your friends would say about the main character in Where'd You Go, Bernadette, whose predicament is similar, though the treatment, time period, and outcomes are much different.
One way to define gender equity is to insist that the full range of both male and female behavior, is presented, to resist making the women all alike. I find the warrior princesses sometimes as tiresome as the pretty and good mommies. Perhaps the horrors you find in Zoe Heller's novels or the narrator in Gillespie and I need to be in the mix as well. Or the spectacularly awful Zenia in Margaret Atwood's The Robber Bride. Lorrie Moore's review perhaps speaks to this idea: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/moore-atwood.html
12Settings
I found one study that found little boys (male teens) as a whole prefer male characters and so do little girls (female teens). It does suffer from a smallish sample size and a lack of statistics, but 90% of boy’s favorite fiction books having male protagonists is high (1).
The majority of characters in fiction for children are also male (2), so even if little boys choose indiscriminately, they must be seeking out fiction with female characters to read a 50/50 ratio.
(1) http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367376.pdf
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/may/06/gender-imbalance-children-s-literat... (the journal article is behind a pay wall)
The majority of characters in fiction for children are also male (2), so even if little boys choose indiscriminately, they must be seeking out fiction with female characters to read a 50/50 ratio.
(1) http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367376.pdf
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/may/06/gender-imbalance-children-s-literat... (the journal article is behind a pay wall)
13weener
I don't read books by women because I necessarily think that it's unlikely or impossible for men to write plausible female characters or perspectives (though many male authors sure don't). I just don't buy into that jazz about how the best authors are usually men because they are naturally better at it. Unfortunately, enough people believe that stuff that an amazing book written by a woman is less likely to receive the attention and praise it deserves, so extra effort is necessary to seek out the great books by female authors.
14japaul22
>12 Settings: I'm going to have to think about this. I have a 4 year old boy and a 1 year old boy.
Most baby books don't have kids at all - they are mainly animals and pictures of the books we have.
The chapter books that I've just started reading with my 4 year old son have either been about animals (Welcome to the Bed and Biscuit, Winnie the Pooh) or the Magic Tree House series that has a brother and sister as protagonists. We've also read some Roald Dahl - The Twits which is about Mr. and Mrs. Twit (balanced) and James and the Giant Peach - no girl characters except the mean Aunts. We've also read Charlotte's Web with a girl main character.
Off the top of my head, the marketing of books for the slightly older crowd are definitely intended to hit the stereotypes of either girls or boys. If you walk through a book store children's section of early chapter books they are predominantly either bright pink with fairies, princesses, etc. or blue and black with action figures and trucks. But this is also not the quality of book that I'd buy while I still have control over what my sons read. If you dig a little deeper into quality writing, I suspect that these stereotypes still exist but are easier to balance.
I also think it's natural for boys to be drawn to reading about boys, just as many of us are drawn to reading about women. Most of the reading I did as a child had girl protagonists.
At a certain point, I know that I will choose having my sons read anything over reading nothing, even if it isn't the quality I would like. Maybe that's wrong, but I think reading is important and they need to enjoy it. Hopefully my suggestions will be influential and it won't end up being an issue, but I bet that's a naive hope!
Most baby books don't have kids at all - they are mainly animals and pictures of the books we have.
The chapter books that I've just started reading with my 4 year old son have either been about animals (Welcome to the Bed and Biscuit, Winnie the Pooh) or the Magic Tree House series that has a brother and sister as protagonists. We've also read some Roald Dahl - The Twits which is about Mr. and Mrs. Twit (balanced) and James and the Giant Peach - no girl characters except the mean Aunts. We've also read Charlotte's Web with a girl main character.
Off the top of my head, the marketing of books for the slightly older crowd are definitely intended to hit the stereotypes of either girls or boys. If you walk through a book store children's section of early chapter books they are predominantly either bright pink with fairies, princesses, etc. or blue and black with action figures and trucks. But this is also not the quality of book that I'd buy while I still have control over what my sons read. If you dig a little deeper into quality writing, I suspect that these stereotypes still exist but are easier to balance.
I also think it's natural for boys to be drawn to reading about boys, just as many of us are drawn to reading about women. Most of the reading I did as a child had girl protagonists.
At a certain point, I know that I will choose having my sons read anything over reading nothing, even if it isn't the quality I would like. Maybe that's wrong, but I think reading is important and they need to enjoy it. Hopefully my suggestions will be influential and it won't end up being an issue, but I bet that's a naive hope!
15sturlington
In the UK, let books be books campaign: http://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/time-to-let-books-be-books/
16Cancellato
My son just graduated high school. I'm sure I couldn't put together a comprehensive list of books we read together, but many of the ones that we talked about a lot were by women or had main female characters (and I didn't push these books at him; he picked them):
Matilda by Roald Dahl
Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
Junie B. Jones series
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins
He lost interest in "Twilight" after the second book, which was good because I read all of them (I was volunteering with 8th graders in language arts and every girl in class was reading them), and they got just more and more dreadful.
Not sure my kid is the "norm." He seems to have a lot of friends who are girls who are creative self-starters with lots of organizational skills (sadly not a trait he's picked up ...)
Matilda by Roald Dahl
Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
Junie B. Jones series
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins
He lost interest in "Twilight" after the second book, which was good because I read all of them (I was volunteering with 8th graders in language arts and every girl in class was reading them), and they got just more and more dreadful.
Not sure my kid is the "norm." He seems to have a lot of friends who are girls who are creative self-starters with lots of organizational skills (sadly not a trait he's picked up ...)
17Settings
And I am misinforming all of you. I looked at the study again, and I see it was actually 11th grade students, not small children. I don't know how I got the impression I was reading about elementary students.
Shame on me.
Shame on me.
18sweetiegherkin
> 14 Unfortunately, even books with animals fall into this trap. You'll notice that many of the main protagonists are still referred to as "he." For instance, you mentioned A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh. If memory serves me correctly, out of all of the characters the only female one is Roo's mother (Kanga?).
19southernbooklady
>18 sweetiegherkin: You'll notice that many of the main protagonists are still referred to as "he."
I'm trying to remember any significant female animals in Wind in the Willows but I'm not coming up with any. But part of the issue there might be that we don't have useful gender-neutral pronouns, so we can't really write gender-neutral characters in English and we tend as a language to default to the masculine.
I'm trying to remember any significant female animals in Wind in the Willows but I'm not coming up with any. But part of the issue there might be that we don't have useful gender-neutral pronouns, so we can't really write gender-neutral characters in English and we tend as a language to default to the masculine.
20LolaWalser
For Wind in the willows, I have no doubt that Grahame intended his animals to be male. Like Beatrix Potter's rabbits etc. they all have definitely gendered personalities. I remember Ratty and Mole in particular as being very English-gentlemanly. (Also gay. Gay as larks.)
That said, the main character in the book I'm reading is a woman whose nickname is "Otter", earned during childhood performances of TWITW. But then, she's a formidable lesbian radical, which probably goes to further prove the point.
That said, the main character in the book I'm reading is a woman whose nickname is "Otter", earned during childhood performances of TWITW. But then, she's a formidable lesbian radical, which probably goes to further prove the point.
21japaul22
>18 sweetiegherkin: True. As I was typing that post I was thinking that many of the animals are gendered. More to think about.
22Cancellato
I dunno. The characters in Winnie the Pooh are so mentally deficient, I'd be offended if they were females.
23southernbooklady
>20 LolaWalser: (Also gay. Gay as larks.)
Ha! I never thought about it, but now that you've said it, they so were!
Ha! I never thought about it, but now that you've said it, they so were!
24rebeccanyc
>4 nohrt4me2:
The goal of feminist criticism is to promote gender equality in all areas of human endeavor, including literature. Therefore, all literature must be judged by whether it promotes gender equality. (Yes, I'm painting with a VERY broad brush here, but that's the gist of it.)
Is that a good goal?
In my opinion, a big NO! That's a terrible goal! I want to read fiction that in some way comments on reality (even if does so in an unrealistic way, if that makes sense), and we do not live in a world of gender equality. Nor do we live in an ideal world of peace, love, and sisterhood, or liberté, égalité, sororité. And even if we did, human nature being human nature, someone would create a little trouble. And that's what makes literature (broad generalization).
And to your other question, I don't think a writer's gender will ever not matter. Some of everybody's perception of the world comes from her or his gender, and it is bound to influence what they write. Being equal in opportunity and freedom doesn't mean that we are all the same -- thank goodness!
The goal of feminist criticism is to promote gender equality in all areas of human endeavor, including literature. Therefore, all literature must be judged by whether it promotes gender equality. (Yes, I'm painting with a VERY broad brush here, but that's the gist of it.)
Is that a good goal?
In my opinion, a big NO! That's a terrible goal! I want to read fiction that in some way comments on reality (even if does so in an unrealistic way, if that makes sense), and we do not live in a world of gender equality. Nor do we live in an ideal world of peace, love, and sisterhood, or liberté, égalité, sororité. And even if we did, human nature being human nature, someone would create a little trouble. And that's what makes literature (broad generalization).
And to your other question, I don't think a writer's gender will ever not matter. Some of everybody's perception of the world comes from her or his gender, and it is bound to influence what they write. Being equal in opportunity and freedom doesn't mean that we are all the same -- thank goodness!
25Cancellato
>24 rebeccanyc: Just to clarify: Within feminist criticism there is room for painting the world as it is ... as long as images of gender INequality are shown as bad, demoralizing, and detrimental to humankind.
The devil in feminist criticism is how you define "promote gender equality."
In earlier decades, I rejected feminist criticism as censoring, doctrinaire, and strident. However, as "feminism" has been misunderstood and vilified by the culture warriors and religious conservatives, I've taken a more sympathetic and serious look at feminist criticism.
That's just me, though.
The devil in feminist criticism is how you define "promote gender equality."
In earlier decades, I rejected feminist criticism as censoring, doctrinaire, and strident. However, as "feminism" has been misunderstood and vilified by the culture warriors and religious conservatives, I've taken a more sympathetic and serious look at feminist criticism.
That's just me, though.
26rebeccanyc
>25 nohrt4me2: s long as images of gender INequality are shown as bad, demoralizing, and detrimental to humankind.
Well, it's all in how it's done, I guess. There's nothing that makes me run away faster from a book than a MESSAGE. And it's certainly difficult to apply those criteria to books written in earlier times and in other cultures, which are a lot of what I read.
Well, it's all in how it's done, I guess. There's nothing that makes me run away faster from a book than a MESSAGE. And it's certainly difficult to apply those criteria to books written in earlier times and in other cultures, which are a lot of what I read.
27Cancellato
>26 rebeccanyc: Yes, books that hammer didactic lessons into your head are generally hard to take, and those that do so with disregard to plot, character development, and narrative style, I'd argue, are tracts, not literature. IMO.
However, all literature in every culture tries to teach us something about what it is to be human, no? In that way, there is a "message." At least that's how I see it.
Very loosely, feminist criticism would deem a book more worthy if it reinforces the equality of women with men. I'm not asking you to buy that personally. I myself buy it only to a point, in that I don't think that every woman in every story has to be a feminist paragon. But she should be recognizably human, even if she's awful.
As I move into my "golden years," I'm increasingly interested at the way older women are treated, even in books by women. Often in books by younger women, particularly in the chicklit vein, they're doddering, domineering, or damaging.
I hope I'm not coming off as combative here. Your responses indicate you have some strong feelings about this, and I'd like to understand them better.
However, all literature in every culture tries to teach us something about what it is to be human, no? In that way, there is a "message." At least that's how I see it.
Very loosely, feminist criticism would deem a book more worthy if it reinforces the equality of women with men. I'm not asking you to buy that personally. I myself buy it only to a point, in that I don't think that every woman in every story has to be a feminist paragon. But she should be recognizably human, even if she's awful.
As I move into my "golden years," I'm increasingly interested at the way older women are treated, even in books by women. Often in books by younger women, particularly in the chicklit vein, they're doddering, domineering, or damaging.
I hope I'm not coming off as combative here. Your responses indicate you have some strong feelings about this, and I'd like to understand them better.
28southernbooklady
>27 nohrt4me2: I'm increasingly interested at the way older women are treated, even in books by women. Often in books by younger women, particularly in the chicklit vein, they're doddering, domineering, or damaging.
But feminist criticism isn't just about identifying and calling out stereotypes. And I'm not sure it is about "promoting gender equality" -- although I'm not feminist scholar or theorist, so I could be off base there.
But I've always thought that feminist perspectives seek to view the woman as a whole, complete person -- not as the dismembered collection of "roles" that she plays -- wife/mother/daughter/lover/bitch. It's not a score card. The "equality" we're looking for is the ability to seen as ourselves, full and complete, flawed and capricious as we may be. "Equality" -- in the sense of being recognized as human beings -- happens almost by default when we are seen as such.
But feminist criticism isn't just about identifying and calling out stereotypes. And I'm not sure it is about "promoting gender equality" -- although I'm not feminist scholar or theorist, so I could be off base there.
But I've always thought that feminist perspectives seek to view the woman as a whole, complete person -- not as the dismembered collection of "roles" that she plays -- wife/mother/daughter/lover/bitch. It's not a score card. The "equality" we're looking for is the ability to seen as ourselves, full and complete, flawed and capricious as we may be. "Equality" -- in the sense of being recognized as human beings -- happens almost by default when we are seen as such.
29chrisstevenson
Well, I've got to say that women have the internal emotions down pat and can slaughter males in that regard. I had to do a lot of reading in YA titles, featuring female authors to get the feel and tone down right. I learned about motivation and reaction more than anything else. I know now that I hit gold with The Girl They Sold to the Moon, which is a dark "Burlesque" in space. I'm a 62 year-old male, ex-federal cop. It was difficult writing a teenage MC, but from the reviews so far, I've nailed it. It also took a grand prize win in a publisher's writing contest and went to mini-auction between six publishers. Film rights are next. I don't know if I got lucky or really knew what I was doing. But the outcome has been a complete and shocking surprise.
Chris Stevenson
Chris Stevenson
30weener
I think I'd rather judge books on whether or not they promote gender INequality. Plenty of books tell great stories without moralizing, and disregarding them because they don't push my agenda would be an insult to art. However, give me a book that gives women a crappy treatment, and I'm hurling it in the trash.
Some art exists to tell mens' stories, and those can be very interesting. But I have a bone to pick with people who think that you can't tell a man's story without denigrating women or using them as mere plot devices, or that men can't be expected to write female characters as though they are people. If you can't do that, it's not because you're a man, it's because you're a bad writer.
Some art exists to tell mens' stories, and those can be very interesting. But I have a bone to pick with people who think that you can't tell a man's story without denigrating women or using them as mere plot devices, or that men can't be expected to write female characters as though they are people. If you can't do that, it's not because you're a man, it's because you're a bad writer.
31rebeccanyc
>27 nohrt4me2:, When I said "message," I meant some kind of agenda beyond "teaching us something about what it means to be human," which I consider the broad goal of literature. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but that's probably because I've abandoned books when I get too much of a sense of an agenda. It is often a fine line, though, between working an issue organically into a plot and making too obvious a point about it.
Of course, I don't like books in which women are demeaned (in fact, in my review of Tom Rachman's The Imperfectionists I wondered why he hates women so much), but I find it harder to take in contemporary writing than in books written in the past when women didn't have all the opportunities they have today, or in cultures where women still don't have the opportunities they have in the US and some other countries. I'm not sure whether I'm explaining this well enough.
But she should be recognizably human, even if she's awful.
Agreed!
Also, I agree with a lot of what >28 southernbooklady: said, about viewing women "as whole, complete" people, whether good, bad, flawed, or whatever.
>29 chrisstevenson: LT has guidelines for authors that include not promoting their books except in the Hobnob with Authors group. Otherwise, the Terms of Service say: "LibraryThing is not an advertising medium. Egregious commercial solicitation is forbidden. No matter how great your novel, this does apply to authors. (See Tips and Guidelines for Authors.)". You can find those guidelines for authors here.
ETA Will check out the link in >32 nohrt4me2:, but not tonight!
Of course, I don't like books in which women are demeaned (in fact, in my review of Tom Rachman's The Imperfectionists I wondered why he hates women so much), but I find it harder to take in contemporary writing than in books written in the past when women didn't have all the opportunities they have today, or in cultures where women still don't have the opportunities they have in the US and some other countries. I'm not sure whether I'm explaining this well enough.
But she should be recognizably human, even if she's awful.
Agreed!
Also, I agree with a lot of what >28 southernbooklady: said, about viewing women "as whole, complete" people, whether good, bad, flawed, or whatever.
>29 chrisstevenson: LT has guidelines for authors that include not promoting their books except in the Hobnob with Authors group. Otherwise, the Terms of Service say: "LibraryThing is not an advertising medium. Egregious commercial solicitation is forbidden. No matter how great your novel, this does apply to authors. (See Tips and Guidelines for Authors.)". You can find those guidelines for authors here.
ETA Will check out the link in >32 nohrt4me2:, but not tonight!
32Cancellato
Rather than become tiresome (I admit I am a lit crit geek), let me instead offer the Purdue University OWL site that offers a very brief but pretty good summary of feminist literary criticism and its evolution (there are other critical theories in the nav bar at left if anyone wants to check those out).
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/11/
If any of the info on the site opens up insights, I hope you'll share.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/11/
If any of the info on the site opens up insights, I hope you'll share.
33vwinsloe
I think that books by women usually pass the Bechdel test. That is a simple test that was developed for films. It goes like this-
Are there:
1. Two named women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man
Women grow up with required reading mostly by men in school. Most women authors can write a convincing male character. I find that male authors do not do very well with female characterizations ( and they often don't pass the Bechdel test). So at some point I decided to seek out women authors. Why would I read something in which people of my gender were portrayed shallowly and inauthentically?
Are there:
1. Two named women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man
Women grow up with required reading mostly by men in school. Most women authors can write a convincing male character. I find that male authors do not do very well with female characterizations ( and they often don't pass the Bechdel test). So at some point I decided to seek out women authors. Why would I read something in which people of my gender were portrayed shallowly and inauthentically?
Iscriviti per commentare
