novel gender what do you think?

[ascanius]

while browsing goodreads I came across a review for blackbirds by Chuck wendig that drew my intrest. in f the review she stated that the book had to much "dude" out something to that extent. and if memory serves it would have been better if a woman had written it.

A little further down I came across another review mentioning an essay by Niel Gaiman. http:// http://www.neilgaiman.com/p/Cool_Stuff/Essays/Essays_By_Neil/All_Books_Have_Genders

what do you guys and gals think? Ladies are there books that simply have to much dude in it? what makes a book so? what about all you guys are there books that are too girly?

and just to clarify I'm not talking about obvious candidates such as YA romance or an obvious dickflick (can't think of a literary equivalent).

PS. sorry this is a vague post computer broke so I'm writing this on my phone and have big thumbs so trying nor to write much.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think if a writer ever genders a story without intending to do so, that writer has screwed up. Characters within the story can have viewpoints that correspond to "masculine" and "feminine" ideas, but unless you're specifically analyzing those ideas, it's better to write from a gender-neutral perspective. You'll otherwise alienate more than half your readers, since some of your readers will see from the other perspective, and some will see from neither.

(If this comment sounds like something from an alien planet, I'd like to note that a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand what genders a novel. For instance, in this current time and place, comedies of manners are typically considered to be something only women want to read, so any story that is a comedy of manners is often dismissed as "feminine." I've read a few, and they don't necessarily display the beliefs and assumptions that women are culturally expected to have, though they may contain individual characters who have those beliefs and assumptions. Depending on mindset, a male reader may even find them relatable!)

Edit: I should note that I believe authors should at least fake a neutral perspective--for instance, if you're very supportive of the nation you live in, you should still write positively when portraying citizens of a rival nation.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

To some extent novels have genders I suppose. But it's only part of a wider picture. Novels are written by people and those people will normally tend to put out something of themselves in their work. Whether that's their gender, their ideologies and beliefs, their personality and humour is very varied. And how it show will appear in everything from their choice of subject matter, plot, language and commentary. However is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't know.

Some authors can give a relatively gender / ideology etc free narration. Others can't. Some can be chameleons who can swap. Heinlein is the best example I can think of for this. After all who would believe that the same person who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land also wrote Starship Troopers. Two radically different world views almost diametrically opposed.

My question would be why would you want to suppress your natural beliefs etc to write a book based in gender free / ideologically neutral values? I mean yeah sure if you're worried you might alienate part of your audience. Say women or liberals. But if you do that you then have to ask the question are you writing for yourself or for others? Is your work true to who you are?

When I think about some of the authors I love, I could not say that they are neutral. So Clifford Simak and Piers Anthony, both great writers who write with a very gentle heart. They're obviously both quite liberal with regards to gender issues and perhaps a little paternalistic. But that's actually part of the enjoyment of reading their work. Stephen Donaldson, clearly suffers with some sort of depressive issue,which does I think detract from his work - at least for me. But having said that if he were to try and write from a more cheery, optimistic view point, would his work be as powerful and compelling as it is? And then you've got the classics like Hemmingway. Can you imagine his work being anywhere near as important if he'd written it from a modern, liberal perspective. He wrote what he was - a rugged individualist with some sexist tendencies.

My thought is that you can go too far in trying to be PC - especially if that's not who you are.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Some authors can give a relatively gender / ideology etc free narration. Others can't. Some can be chameleons who can swap. Heinlein is the best example I can think of for this. After all who would believe that the same person who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land also wrote Starship Troopers. Two radically different world views almost diametrically opposed.

Actually, Heinlein is my #1 example of an author failing to do this, since he always wrote women according to how he as a man wanted women to be. See, for instance, the bit in Stranger in a Strange Land where Heinlein has a female character talk about how much women love being leered at by strangers--that's a clear failure to get into a woman's head and think as she thinks.

To be clearer about my broader argument, I'm not saying that your story can't include events that justify a certain worldview, but it needs to set up those events organically. An individualist, for instance, can write a story that shows the failure of collectivism, but it must show how collectivists actually act and think, not how an individualist wants them to act and think. (This is why Animal Farm is such a great satire--it exaggerates for comic effect, but it's not that inaccurate a portrayal of the course of dictatorship.)

Back on topic, the ways men and women are expected to think are themselves things that can be deconstructed (as with the futility of masculinity in Cyrano de Bergerac), but I don't think they're broad or meaningful enough to be championed. You're better off matter-of-factly utilizing the ways individuals think.

Edit: I should note that Jack London could not write believable female characters. His solution was simple--he had his wife write them! (And I myself rely on a female editor for some things, most obviously how it feels for a woman to have sex.)

Edit to the edit: I guess I might as well lay out my ideas directly rather than piece by piece.

"The world is this way" is a statement that is difficult to prove and easy to argue. "There are people who believe the world is this way" is a statement that is easy to prove. I dislike the introduction of counterfactuals unless explicitly marked as such (for instance, I'm okay with magic in a fantasy story, but not false physics in a sci-fi story unless it's a deliberate throwback to a discredited theory.) Thus, when a story is counterfactual regarding the beliefs of people who're different from the author, presenting their beliefs as other than they really are, that pisses me off. With gender, the issues tend to be much shallower than, say, religious beliefs (for instance, I've seen characters signified as being "female" by the fact that they love to buy dresses), but on the other hand, there are so many people who're the opposite gender of you that if you can't accurately write the opposite gender, you can't write a large swathe of the population.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I was really using Heinlein more as an example of someone who could get into the radical headspace of a new messiah as in Stranger and equally push an agenda of a right wing, foaming at the mouth anti-communist almost fasist as in troopers. They are diametrically opposed views (despite what Republicans think). And then when you look at the Number of the Beast he's ripping along as the almost individualist survivalist. As to whether he could write women well, it's probably not for me to judge as a man. But Friday serves as an example of his strong, almost masculine woman with post modern / feminist equality background.

As to whether that's getting into the headspace of a woman truly, or just male fantasy I don't know. But I think it's related less to him and more to his second wife's influence and their open marriage. She was I suspect as much an individualist as he was, and its been argued that she served as the role model for many of his female characters.

But back to the OP. The real question was that if his novels were written in a more gender neutral, PC way, would they still have the same impact upon readers? My thought is that as uncomfortable in places as they sometimes are, and sometimes verging into strange philosophical dialogues as they do, they are a part of the author. A chameleon author who wanted to span the divide between an amazing variety of personal values / beliefs. And whether you agree with his political views or not, that makes the novels interesting.

In a way I think this parallels many other artistic endeavours. Whether painting, sculpting or what have you, an artist should put something of himself into his work. And often its said that if you want to truly understand a piece of art you need to understand the artist. But at the same time when you do know the artist the work comes alive in a way that you could not have understood before.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Hi,

I was really using Heinlein more as an example of someone who could get into the radical headspace of a new messiah as in Stranger and equally push an agenda of a right wing, foaming at the mouth anti-communist almost fasist as in troopers. They are diametrically opposed views (despite what Republicans think). And then when you look at the Number of the Beast he's ripping along as the almost individualist survivalist. As to whether he could write women well, it's probably not for me to judge as a man. But Friday serves as an example of his strong, almost masculine woman with post modern / feminist equality background.

As to whether that's getting into the headspace of a woman truly, or just male fantasy I don't know. But I think it's related less to him and more to his second wife's influence and their open marriage. She was I suspect as much an individualist as he was, and its been argued that she served as the role model for many of his female characters.

But back to the OP. The real question was that if his novels were written in a more gender neutral, PC way, would they still have the same impact upon readers? My thought is that as uncomfortable in places as they sometimes are, and sometimes verging into strange philosophical dialogues as they do, they are a part of the author. A chameleon author who wanted to span the divide between an amazing variety of personal values / beliefs. And whether you agree with his political views or not, that makes the novels interesting.

I get the feeling we're talking past each other. I love when an author can get into the headspace of diametrically opposed figures, accurately portraying how both of them think and feel. My complaint is when an author allows one character's beliefs to seep in and infect how other characters are portrayed. (To keep this on the subject of the OP, it's okay if your main character is a man who thinks women are shallow and frivolous, but if all the women in your story are shallow and frivolous, you're no longer being accurate to the world.)

To elaborate on something I mentioned earlier, I also think it's okay to write a story that's entirely about a certain sphere--for instance, a war story set in a time and place where all soldiers are men. In this case, your story is bound to have a "male" feel. But don't let that go unexamined. Show how the soldiers are influenced by their conception of what "men" are and should be, and what they fail to notice or acknowledge because of this. If you look at their ideas with a neutral gaze, both male and female readers will be able to understand and appreciate your story.

If this gets any longer, I'll just deal with it in PMs--I'm getting dangerously close to monopolizing the thread.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Yeah it is getting long, so I'll bow out I think. Just a quick (as if I could do quick!) note. For me it's not about whether the author can get into the headspace of a character. It's about whether the headspace of the author can be seen in the entire work. To try and write in a neutral, genderless, PC way is to take something from the work - the soul perhaps of the author. To my mind writing is an art, and part of art is putting yourself into your work. For an author that will be in the characters, the plot, the dialogue, the prose used and the very subject matter.

I'm reminded of a piece from an old BBC show I've just been watching - A very Peculiar Practice. In it one of the characters is talking about how men and women are depicted in classical art and how the works are described. Men are never reclining for example unless they're dead or dying. Women are often lying down. Classicists describe men in clasic works as heroic etc, while women are ripe fruit ready to be plucked. Agree or disagree, the point is that this describes the headspace of the artists and their critics. So the point is that the artist's headspace is there in the work, as is the critic's headspace in the work's analysis. And to my mind that's as it should be.

People, authors and readers are not bland, genderless, PC things. They are all real human beings with their own views and values. If you write your book in a neutral way then I suspect you're also writing for a neutral audience. And if you aren't a bland, neutral, PC sort of guy, then to write in that way is to be false to yourself and your work.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[deilaitha]

Actually, Heinlein is my #1 example of an author failing to do this, since he always wrote women according to how he as a man wanted women to be. See, for instance, the bit in Stranger in a Strange Land where Heinlein has a female character talk about how much women love being leered at by strangers--that's a clear failure to get into a woman's head and think as she thinks.

I love Heinlein, and I would never go so far as to say he was misogynistic, but he had a bit of a screwed up idea about women. His Lazarus Long writings in particular. However, it reflects the same problem women first had when they started entering the literary arena. A lot of female writers desperately wanted to avoid sounding 'female' or writing 'romances' because the male-dominated literary world looked down on them for it. It's something that still persists today. Sometimes I find myself worrying that my novels are too...girly. It's a shame, I know. Even worse, I generally enjoy male writers more than female writers (a strong exception being LeGuin). I worry that I'm a secret sexist a lot of the time.

Edit: For perspective on this post, I am female.

 

[ascanius]

I think the problem for me is that I'm dense and oblivious to the obvious. I really like the majority of chickflicks that come out in theaters simply because the're fun. I tend to take things at face value until something cause me to change my opinion. bad writing is more likely to cause my to quit reading a book before the sex of the author or subject matter, let alone thinking it would be better if written by a male/female respectively.

I guess what I'm asking is what makes a novel a girl novel or guy novel or just simply girly. I also think the big question is also why is this a turn off, or create preference. I'm mean for instance why do you prefer books written by one sex or the other?

I'm going to share my thoughts, though I'm coming at this from the ignorance of limited reading. for a book to be girly the character relationships have more emphasis even if not romantic. guy books on the other hand have less emphasis on the relationships.

deilaitha can I ask why you like male writers more than female writers?
thanks for your replies

 

[Mindfire]

A link to the review (I think?) ascanius is talking about:
Adult Review: Blackbirds by Chuck Wendig - The Readventurer

 

[Mindfire]

*snip*

I'd like to point out that you overlook something crucial: voice. Every author has a unique voice that is a product of who they are, and that voice will more likely than not be influenced (though not subsumed) by the author's gender. You seem to be suggesting that an author consciously alter their voice if it seems to be skewing too masculine or feminine. I don't think that's good advice. It seems to be advocating that we all total up our masculine points and our feminine points and make sure they balance out exactly, a process that is tedious and stifles the author's natural voice in the process. To make a comparison: I'm Christian, and my writing has Judeo-Christian undertones. I'm not going to comb through my work and root them out just because somebody might be offended. Likewise, I don't think anyone should have to censor their voice.

EDIT: I was Ninja'd by like 3 people. lol

 

[ascanius]

A link to the review (I think?) ascanius is talking about:
Adult Review: Blackbirds by Chuck Wendig - The Readventurer

wow I really spaced that, thanks Mindfire, its the right review.

 

[Xitra_Blud]

It sounds to me like the reviewer is saying that the author didn't do a good job portraying the opposite sex. In other words, he could tell the female character was written by a guy.

 

[deilaitha]

Why do I like male writers more than female writers? Oy. I'm sure Freud would have fun with that one...

I think that the main reason is that of all of the books I have read, those by male writers were generally better than those by the female writers (with one notable exception, as mentioned previously). Because of that, I naturally gravitate toward male writers. I don't think women are less capable, I just think that for some reason I keep stumbling on the less gifted female writers. That is the most likely reason,

However, I also really do not like romantic novels. By romantic, I mean one where the plot is driven by romance. Romantic elements are in most works of fiction, and I am okay with that. I am even okay with a novel that explores human relationships in detail. Something about really romantic stuff though...it makes my head explode. It makes my eyes disappear from being rolled into my head so far.

And...well not all women write romantic novels, but they are more likely to.

 

[Guy]

I'd like to point out that you overlook something crucial: voice. Every author has a unique voice that is a product of who they are, and that voice will more likely than not be influenced (though not subsumed) by the author's gender. You seem to be suggesting that an author consciously alter their voice if it seems to be skewing too masculine or feminine. I don't think that's good advice. It seems to be advocating that we all total up our masculine points and our feminine points and make sure they balance out exactly, a process that is tedious and stifles the author's natural voice in the process. To make a comparison: I'm Christian, and my writing has Judeo-Christian undertones. I'm not going to comb through my work and root them out just because somebody might be offended. Likewise, I don't think anyone should have to censor their voice.

This.

I think approaching writing a story with the idea of "would a man think this" or "would a woman do that" is a huge mistake. Returning to the Heinlien example, there are women who like to be ogled and some who find it threatening or demeaning. There are guys who aren't even slightly interested in sports , cars or fixing/building things. I know because I am one of them. My older sister is the exact opposite of many of the cliches about women. I don't think she's ever gotten lost in her life, she excelled in math and science and is a geologist, and I've never known her to compromise herself so boys would like her, but neither was she a shrinking violet, and that colored my perceptions of women when I was growing up. Be true to the character, however that character may be and whatever that character's reproductive plumbing is. Of course, I can't help my perceptions and perspective coloring my writing, and I am a guy, and my main characters tend to be women. There are a few things that I just can't know what are like for a woman. I have no way of knowing what childbirth feels like, so I listened to what women said and used that when I described a birthing scene. Likewise, my characters tend to be warriors. Even though I've never had to fight for my life or kill anyone, I read accounts of battles or people who had to use deadly force to defend themselves and use that to color my fight scenes and try to make them authentic. A warrior woman is an individual, not a stereotype cast iron bitch or man-hater. Treat your characters as individual people, not demographic stereotypes. Write honestly. Ask "what would this person say" rather than "what would a man/woman say." Don't go out of your way to be offensive but, if after writing the story and the characters honestly, someone is offended, oh flippin' well. Don't lose any sleep over it.

 

[Feo Takahari]

This.

I think approaching writing a story with the idea of "would a man think this" or "would a woman do that" is a huge mistake. Returning to the Heinlien example, there are women who like to be ogled and some who find it threatening or demeaning. There are guys who aren't even slightly interested in sports , cars or fixing/building things. I know because I am one of them. My older sister is the exact opposite of many of the cliches about women. I don't think she's ever gotten lost in her life, she excelled in math and science and is a geologist, and I've never known her to compromise herself so boys would like her, but neither was she a shrinking violet, and that colored my perceptions of women when I was growing up. Be true to the character, however that character may be and whatever that character's reproductive plumbing is. Of course, I can't help my perceptions and perspective coloring my writing, and I am a guy, and my main characters tend to be women. There are a few things that I just can't know what are like for a woman. I have no way of knowing what childbirth feels like, so I listened to what women said and used that when I described a birthing scene. Likewise, my characters tend to be warriors. Even though I've never had to fight for my life or kill anyone, I read accounts of battles or people who had to use deadly force to defend themselves and use that to color my fight scenes and try to make them authentic. A warrior woman is an individual, not a stereotype cast iron bitch or man-hater. Treat your characters as individual people, not demographic stereotypes. Write honestly. Ask "what would this person say" rather than "what would a man/woman say." Don't go out of your way to be offensive but, if after writing the story and the characters honestly, someone is offended, oh flippin' well. Don't lose any sleep over it.

I think I may have misspoken somewhere, since I completely agree with every statement you just made here. I'll give up trying to explain myself for now.

 

[Chessie]

My experience is that most books are unisex. I've read fantastic female characters written by men, and vice versa. One of my favorite examples is in 'Best Served Cold' by my celebrity crush Joe Abercrombie. His female lead truly acted female and had such wants, thoughts, etc. A good writer gets into his characters and makes the most of it, no matter what their sex. I don't think I've ever read a book that left me thinking wow, that dude doesn't know how to write females or whatever.

 

[Amanita]

I can't think of an instance where I've noticed this or have been bothered by it but maybe I don't read this kind of book in the first place. I'm probably mostly drawn to "gender-neutral" books because I'm neiter interested in "stereotypically male" things like lot's of action and fighting without much character developement nor in "stereotypically female" things like stories that focus only on romance or on female characters worrying about their looks, fashion, model career or similar.
Outside from such stereotyped categories, I don't really know what makes a book "female" or "male" and thus can't really avoid doing that either.
I have to admit that I'm not a great friend of all those discussions about how men and women are almost like two alien species who have nothing in common and can't comprehend each other. (I haven't gotten this impression in real life yet.)
I don't really understand why the desire to make statements about "all women are x " or "all men are y" is so great. Is it really necessary to make people who are slightly different from a perceived "normality" feel like there's something wrong with them? I'm certain there are many people (if not most) who do not fall under all the things supposedly typical for their gender. Some of the allegiations what's supposedly typically female are actually quite offensive to me and I don't know where they're getting it from.
I have seen very convincing female characters written by male authors. According to these theories, I can't really judge on male characters but I didn't really come across huge differences in the behaviour of the male characters written by women compared to those written by men.