POV of the opposite gender

[maestrowork]

Can anyone suggest a few books written by female authors, about male protagonists and targeting male readers (genres are fine)? Or female authors writing as males...

Thanks.

[aadams73]

PJ Parrish--two sisters whose main protagonist is a black, male cop.

Plus, they blog: http://pjparrish.blogspot.com/

Their books are a really good read.

[JAlpha]

Margaret Atwood's novel, Oryx and Crake, the third person limited POV character is a male, who calls himself Snowman.

[Arden]

Can anyone suggest a few books written by female authors, about male protagonists and targeting male readers (genres are fine)? Or female authors writing as males...

Thanks.

I really only know about the mystery genre... I've never seen a mystery genre book by a female author that targeted male readers exclusively. The best in the genre seem to target BOTH a male and female audience as opposed to the strictly female audience many female writers garner (like, for example, Evanovich)

The best authors who capture both? Male readers pick up Carol O'Connell's stuff.

Lisa Gardner's book, Alone, is about a male police sniper... she almost gets as close to macho aspects of Lee Child (but not quite -- he's in a class of his own).

I've never read a female author that can get anywhere near the absolute maleness of Sandford or Vachss or Burke or Ellroy or, to be honest, Child.

Authors who have managed to attract both genders enthusiastically: of course, Sue Grafton, Dennis Lehane and Jonathon Kellerman.

Robert Crais can write from the perspective of a female protagonist as well as a male. His recent book, The Two Minute Rule, let's him show his stuff. So can Michael Connelly.

From my perspective, a lot of female writers who have male protagonists make them too "sensitive", like J.A. Jance's protagonists, for example.

The best way for a female author to get away with a male protagonist is to use a male pseudonym in my opinion. I certainly know that I won't have got the writing gigs deal that I did if anyone suspected my true gender.

There are exceptions, of course; and I, for one, would love to hear about them so that I might read the books.

I have an unfair but inherent distrust of males trying to write from a female's point of view. It seldom works. The exceptions are in the classics, of course -- old D.H. Lawrence sure pulled it off.

It's an interesting question... why do you ask?

[Arden]

PJ Parrish--two sisters whose main protagonist is a black, male cop.

Plus, they blog: http://pjparrish.blogspot.com/

Their books are a really good read.

Hey, cool! I will read these!

[KAM]

Hmm, these are just a few I see on my bookshelf.

Females writing from male POV:

Susanna Clarke - Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell
Audrey Niffenegger - The Time Traveler's Wife (both male & female POV)
Pearl S. Buck - The Good Earth

Males writing female POV:

Arthur Golden - Memoirs of a Geisha
Wally Lamb - She's Come Undone

Hope that helps! Kim

[Zolah]

Can anyone suggest a few books written by female authors, about male protagonists and targeting male readers (genres are fine)? Or female authors writing as males...

Thanks.

(Mystery): Agatha Christie wrote many books with a male POV - 'The Pale Horse' is my favourite. J D Robb's books share the narrative between the male and female protagonists (starting with 'Naked in Death').

(Fantasy and SF): Hugo and Nebula Winner Lois McMaster Bujold. Her Miles Vorkosigan SF series are all written from a male perspective, but it might be best to start with 'The Curse of Chalion' (fantasy) which is a brilliant and very masculine narrative (and a favourite with most of the male friends I could persuade to read it). Some others in the genre...Martha Wells. Most of her books share narrative between the principle male and female characters, 'The Element of Fire' and 'Death of the Necromancer' (both fantasy) being two. And the classic would probably be Ursula K Le Guin, who is really brilliant at this: 'Left Hand of Darkness' and 'The Dispossessed' (SF) and The Earthsea Series (fantasy) are all transforming reads.

(Historical): Georgette Heyer wrote several books from a male POV, some of my favourites are: 'The Foundling' and 'False Colours'. Dorothy Dunnett also does this with her series charting the life of Francis Crawford of Lymond, starting with 'The Game of Kings'.

[veinglory]

The very first examples that came to mind are JK Rowling (woman writing male), me (women writing gay men for both female and gay male markets) and Thomans Kaplan-Mayfield (man writing female hero) but scanning my bookshelf it seems that writers aren't particualr pre-disposed to write same gender protagonists except in certain genres.

[maestrowork]

Thank you. Keep them coming.

My other question is: What makes writing "masculine" or "feminine"? Granted, it depends on the genres -- mystery, for example, seem to always lean toward "masculine" writing and romance/love story seem to have feminine quality.

[veinglory]

Do you mean what stereotypically real men and woman are 'meant' to be (by which defintion I am basically a man without the groinal protruberance -- despite totally feeling like I am actually a woman) or actual typical differences between make and females writer's styles within the same genre?

There is an online 'gender detector' that works of writing samples and it says I am a man ever time.

[maestrowork]

I think certain generalizations and stereotypes are inevitable. I mean, chances are books meant for males, for example, are read by many women, and vice versa. But still, when we say such and such a book is very "masculine" or "feminine" -- what do we mean? What kind of qualities make it masculine or feminine? How do the readers identify?

[victoria.goddard]

This doesn't really answer your question, I'm afraid, but in the context of what makes some writing 'masculine' as opposed to 'feminine', Dr Doyle's "Girl Cooties theory of literature" (applied to sf and fantasy) is rather fun.

http://www.sff.net/paradise/girlcooties.htm

[veinglory]

I am just bitter at having to buy my regular magazines from the 'Men's interest' section at Borders. And no, not booby magazines--seed, UFO, skeptical enquirer etc.

I am stilltrying to thing of an effective protest--perhaps a letter to the magazines themselves saying I regret I can no longer buy them because it pisses me off too much.

[reph]

To see an exaggeration of the M/F stereotypes, just for greater clarity about them, look at children's books from about 1900. The Five Little Peppers and Elsie Dinsmore were series for girls. They're all about family relationships and being good. The chief virtues are charity and helpfulness. Polly Pepper is forever feeling guilty over some minuscule failure to be 100% nice to somebody. Tom Swift was for boys. It promoted initiative and independence. The characters had exciting adventures.

[Zolah]

Thank you. Keep them coming.

My other question is: What makes writing "masculine" or "feminine"? Granted, it depends on the genres -- mystery, for example, seem to always lean toward "masculine" writing and romance/love story seem to have feminine quality.

Hmmm. If this is your area of interest it would definitely be worth reading the Miles Vorkosigan series by Lois McMaster Bujold. Her writing style might be described as typically 'masculine' (action based, concise, lots of explosions, graphic violence) but the lead male character himself has several qualities which might be called traditionally 'female' such as an obsession with his own appearance and a tendency to endlessly self-examine his emotions. I find this contrast fascinating myself.

[maestrowork]

Her writing style might be described as typically 'masculine' (action based, concise, lots of explosions, graphic violence) but the lead male character himself has several qualities which might be called traditionally 'female' such as an obsession with his own appearance and a tendency to endlessly self-examine his emotions. I find this contrast fascinating myself.

Sounds like something I typically write.

[Zolah]

Sounds like something I typically write.

The 'action based, concise, lots of explosions, graphic violence' part, or the '[he has] an obsession with his own appearance and a tendency to endlessly self-examine his emotions' part? There's something of a contrast there...;)

[Cathy C]

Hunter's Moon, by . . . well, me. Heh. First person male POV.

Whiskey Sour, by JA Konrath (another AWer). Just read it. Excellent first person female POV, blended with third person from the villain. Sort of Wambaugh-esque. Very good procedural mystery!

[ChaosTitan]

Any of Gregory Maguire's books (Wicked, Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, Mirror Mirror, etc...). I haven't read them all, but I'm pretty sure his protagonists are always female.

[janetbellinger]

Can anyone suggest a few books written by female authors, about male protagonists and targeting male readers (genres are fine)? Or female authors writing as males...

Thanks.

The Underpainter by Jane Urquahart

[AncientEagle]

without the groinal protruberance

So that's what it's called! I can't wait for the opportunity to call some jerk "a real groinal protruberance head."

[Annabella5780]

There is an online 'gender detector' that works of writing samples and it says I am a man ever time.

I've done this both for a work of creative writing AND my blog entries some time in the past, and I got a male detection, as well.

I guess it's kinda fitting as one of my online names, back in the day, made everyone who came in contact with me think I was male. I changed it to something more feminine (not the name I use here) in order to show that YES, I am a woman.

So, I'm not sure what to think. I'll have to go through my books tomorrow and post a few. At the moment, I can't think of any off the top of my head that fits the question asked. But, I'll find it tomorrow!

[Linda Adams]

My other question is: What makes writing "masculine" or "feminine"? Granted, it depends on the genres -- mystery, for example, seem to always lean toward "masculine" writing and romance/love story seem to have feminine quality.

This is an interesting discussion. I'm co-writing a book for women readers in a traditionally male-oriented genre--thriller. I think there are women out there who would like a action-adventure thriller written for them. Over the course of it, I've really learned a lot about the differences in how it plays out in the story--particularly since I have an all male critique group.

The biggest difference between the two types of books is that the women's book is strongly focused on the relationships. Romance is a natural fit since that's what the story is about. Mystery, however, has a number of books that are obviously for women. There's a small town series that's about the amateur detective's relationships with all the people and that's how she solves the crimes; a needlepoint mystery series where they have socializing in the needlepoint store. There's also a fantasy series where the heroine cares greatly for her people, enough to sacrifice her own success to help--and never consummate a love relationship for the same reason. The men's books seem to focus more on the events or the "toys." The ones I see in my genre are about politics or the military or technology.

Structure also varies. In a lot of the guy books in my genre, it starts out with the hero going into fix something. In a lot of the women-oriented books, something happens and the women gets involved. I look at suspense, and nearly all of those books start out with a woman character who gets sucked into a situation because of something that happens to her. In a serial killer book, she might get involved because she's the next victim. In a more traditional male-oriented book, the hero is a detective trying to catch the guy--fix the problem.

Even word choices make a difference for the genders. Our book is set during the Civil War. If we use a male POV, we do mention the type of gun when appropriate and whether it's a pistol or revolver. But if it's the heroine's POV, it's a gun, plain and simple. The women readers we're targeting aren't going to care if it's a Pinfire, a Pettingill, a pistol, or a revolver--it looks like a gun and acts like a gun, so it's a gun. The word choices haven't worked well for all of the male members. Some of the wording specifically for women particularly offended one guy, and he reacted very hostilely (this was a person who huffed about why anyone would write a book for women).

Since it is during the Civil War, we talk about the clothes because those readers will expect it. "Dress-o-Babble." Not a lot (it's referenced maybe twice), but the readers will expect it. We even work the uniforms the soldiers wear for the same reason. I've seen very few male-oriented books that don't mention the characters were even wearing clothes.

Someone else mentioned Sue Grafton's books as crossing between the genders. I've always found her character far too masculine, as are the stories. But recently, a male reviewer declared that the latest book had gone to the girls--it seems Ms. Grafton mentioned make-up and clothes in the book (given how the books are, it's probably one or two lines with Kinsey's wry humor). Laurell K. Hamilton took flak on her books for mentioning the clothes, too.

[Medievalist]

I have tried to resist this topic, but I can't.

People have sex; words have gender, and trust me, gender is no substitute for sex.

If you are speaking of people as people (versus, for instance, human behaviors in a group of humans) you are speaking of sex, not gender.

[maestrowork]

gen·der
n.

1. The sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy.
2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

Sex
4: the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles; "she didn't want to know the sex of the foetus" [syn: gender, sexuality]

A person can be of certain "gender" that is different than their "sex." But it's gender (sexual identity) we're talking about here.

[Medievalist]

That's a wretched dictionary; I bet it's Webster's (You do know who Webster uses to update it's dictionaries, right? Grad students--it's a crime, I'm telling you! )

Here's a Real Dictionary, The Blessed American Heritage Dictionary: (http://www.bartleby.com/61/59/G0075900.html)

NOUN: 1. Grammar a. A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms. b. One category of such a set. c. The classification of a word or grammatical form in such a category. d. The distinguishing form or forms used. 2. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture. 3a. The condition of being female or male; sex. b. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.

You will notice that "sexual identity" is the [i]second[\i] definition.

The OED only offers the [inaccurate] association for the 3b defintion

3. transf. a. Sex. Now only jocular. b. In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes. Freq. attrib.

In reality, I know I'm waging a losing battle here, but sometimes I just can't stand the pain any longer . . .

[Medievalist]

A person can be of certain "gender" that is different than their "sex." But it's gender (sexual identity) we're talking about here.

Oh, no you're not, you're talking about whether characters are positively penised or lusciously labia'd--biology, because the gender roles are not determined by chromosones, the presence of absence or dangly bits, names, or astrological sign--they are determined by inner criteria.

Even the language of the initial query reveals the assumption: "opposite," as if there were only two genders. You are talking about a biologically identified author writing about someone of the opposite [sex].

Even linguists identify as many as six genders, depending on the language (and, in case someone was wondering neuter is regarded as an absence of gender, linguistically).

[Sage]

It looks to me as if that dictionary entry is still using gender in the biological AND cultural sense (definition 2 or definition 3a). I understand what you're saying, Medievalist, but I think you're getting bogged down in semantics, & even the dictionary entries (either posted here) seems to allow for their use interchangeably.

[Medievalist]

It looks to me as if that dictionary entry is still using gender in the biological AND cultural sense (definition 2 or definition 3a). I understand what you're saying, Medievalist, but I think you're getting bogged down in semantics, & even the dictionary entries (either posted here) seems to allow for their use interchangeably.

First, yes, as I said, I'm fighting a losing battle; language is changing, and That's a Good Thing.

At the same time, as a professional studier of language, some changes annoy the socks off me. In this case, the way gender is gradually being wrested, (unnaturally, in my admittedly idiosyncratic and obsessive thinking) from a specific and linguistic term of art, to fit another meaning, profoundly annoys me.

The OED definition is interesting because in general terms it lists alternate definitions in order of historical use; it's a historical dictionary so it reflects the living nature of language change; the first attestation for 3a is Alex Comfort's Joy of Sex, in, I think, 1969.

So yes, I know it's a losing battle, but sometimes . . .

Just don't ask me about compose and comprise . . .

[maestrowork]

OK.

Let's continue our discussion, shall we?

[MacAllister]

Actually, it's part of the discussion--because different people use terms like "gender" or "sex" to mean different things, and for the sake of a meaningful conversation, those terms have to be understood by all the participants.

FWIW, Medievalist, I think it may be a losing battle--but still a battle worth fighting.

[maestrowork]

I didn't have the impression that people were confused. Annoyed, perhaps. But I don't think anyone was confused what everyone else was talking about. But let's clarify, for the sake of it: we are not talking about strictly biological "sexual characteristics" of male or female. We are talking about sexual identification, whether biological or psychological. And we're going to limit that to just female and male, because honestly I don't know what the other "genders" are (male-to-female? female-to-male? asexual? I don't know) and for the sake of this discussion we're only taking about male vs. female.

OK, let's move on.

[Medievalist]

OK.

Let's continue our discussion, shall we?

Fine.

Take a look at Emma Bull's fabulous novel Bone Dance: A Fantasy for Technophiles.

Or Ursula LeGuin The Left Hand of Darkness, or Delany Trouble on Triton: An Ambiguous Heterotopia .

These deal with gender, as well as sex, and the protagonists do not share the same [sex] and [gender] as the authors.

[SJB]

I've yet to read a male author who writes women as convincingly as George Eliot (real name: Mary Ann Evans) wrote men. Oops, wait, Vikram Seth did Lata pretty well in A Suitable Boy, I thought.

Herte's a nice generalisation (a contradiction in terms if you're going to be pedantic, but let's not go there...): men don't write women well. Take Stephen King. I adore his books, and he has created some of the most memorable male characters I've read about, but his women are either psychos or sex objects. I mean, I was almost liking young Beverly (aged 11) from the novel It... right up to the point where the lot of pre-pubescent boys (six of 'em) gang-banged her so that they could regroup in order to fight the Evil Monster! I mean, sick, bro.

(He writes very well about his wife Tabby in On Writing, though.)

[maestrowork]

It's interesting to note that a lot of women could write men well, but not the other way. Why? Because women are more complex/complicated than men? Men are more primitive and easily figured out? :)

I have to say Arthur Golden did a good job with Memoirs of a Geisha -- of course, he was writing about a stereotypically "female" character. Larry McMurtry also did women well, I think. But that's probably just me.

[BlackCrowesChick]

I've yet to read a male author who writes women as convincingly as George Eliot (real name: Mary Ann Evans) wrote men. Oops, wait, Vikram Seth did Lata pretty well in A Suitable Boy, I thought.

Herte's a nice generalisation (a contradiction in terms if you're going to be pedantic, but let's not go there...): men don't write women well. Take Stephen King. I adore his books, and he has created some of the most memorable male characters I've read about, but his women are either psychos or sex objects. I mean, I was almost liking young Beverly (aged 11) from the novel It... right up to the point where the lot of pre-pubescent boys (six of 'em) gang-banged her so that they could regroup in order to fight the Evil Monster! I mean, sick, bro.

(He writes very well about his wife Tabby in On Writing, though.)

I disagree. IMO, Stephen King writes women very well. I have not read It, so I can't comment on that, but there are other books he's written that prove my point. Carrie is one. Rose Madder is another. The Stand another (the character Frannie, I'm talking about.) In the first two I named, the MC is a woman, and is convincing. And no, I don't consider Carrie White to be a psycho. The Stand doesn't have one main character, Frannie is one of many, but I found her to be very real. In fact, all of the women characters I've read by Stephen seem real to me, whether they are THE main character or not. He's even written a very real dead woman character, and I think that's pretty hard to top.

I agree that he writes very well about Tabby in On Writing. I felt like I know her after reading it. Back to the original question of this thread, I have a book recommendation of hers. In her book One on One, there are two protagonists - one male and one female. She did a wonderful job with both.

[MacAllister]

Delores Claiborne.

Annie Wilkes from Misery

Jo from Bag of Bones.

I'm okay with how King writes women.

[Dawno]

perhaps it's the vino talking here, but I wanted to throw in my two cents about something - I didn't see the scene in IT as a "gang bang" - and I'm highly sensitive to that sort of thing - if you want me to throw a book across the room, that's one of the things I'd definitely do it for.

The whole point of the scene was was to bind them together in a way that would not be broken short of death. Her love for them and the significance of her sacrifice are what is key to the scene. And I would also point out that I believe there wasn't any sense at all of the boys even being eager for the experience...they were just as aware of the solemnity and ritualism involved and were hesitant. Not really what one would expect to read in a 'gang bang' scene.

I think King does a wonderful job writing from the female POV.

[BlackCrowesChick]

Jo from Bag of Bones.

I'm okay with how King writes women.

That's who I meant by the dead woman character. She's one of my very favorites. :)

[MacAllister]

That's who I meant by the dead woman character
I thought you meant Sara Tidwell...one of the spookiest, saddest ghosts ever.

I agree with you completely about Jo. Hell, I was in love with her, too, by the end of the book--so as a reader, could completely empathize with Mike Noonan.

[BlackCrowesChick]

She was very real, too. Very complex. But no, I had meant Jo.

[Celia Cyanide]

JT Leroy aka Laura Albert

A female who wrote from the POV of a male with a gender identity crisis and wanted to be female.

[gp101]

It's interesting to note that a lot of women could write men well, but not the other way. Why? Because women are more complex/complicated than men? Men are more primitive and easily figured out?

(Here's a can o' worms about to be opened)

I'll bet anything the answer is more a lack of interest in men for writing in a female POV than it is a lack of talent. I'm no expert on any of the psycho-analytical sciences, however I think that guy writers would rather nail a great characterization of a man than of a woman. It's a macho thing. I'm a guy and I try to write women that are interesting and believable. But a guy that can write from the female POV extremely well time in and time out? Inevitably his sexuality would get called into question--mostly by other guys, maybe as a jealous excuse (for their lack of such writing skills), or maybe because of distrust or denial that a straight guy could know so well what it means to be a woman. I think this--either consciencely or unconsciencely--influences what POV most male writers write in.

No matter how much most guys here will say they're above it, most of us men would rather be known for writing that great, unforgettable male (macho!) character that every guy wants to be rather than writing that great, unforgettable female character that every woman wants to be, all things being equal (meaning, in a hypothetical world you had the talent to write either POV very well but for some stupid reason were only allowed to write one to be remembered by).

Personally, if writing great female POVs happened to be my forte and the only way I could get published, I'd take it in a heartbeat. That said, yeah, I would rather be known for writing great characters of both sexes, but if I could only be remembered for or associated to one, I'd rather be the guy who wrote Indy Jones over the guy that can write Indy's female version.

I don't think women would necessarily have the same problem. I think men are more concerned with appearing too feminine than women are of appearing too masculine in regards to the way we all write. In this respect, maybe Maestro is right in citing our primitiveness as a cause of a lack of good female POVs from male authors.

Back to the original question on this thread, aren't most romance novels written by females, a lot of them writing in a male POV?

Okay, let my persecution/crucifixion/condemnation begin!

[glutton]

(Here's a can o' worms about to be opened)

I'll bet anything the answer is more a lack of interest in men for writing in a female POV than it is a lack of talent. I'm no expert on any of the psycho-analytical sciences, however I think that guy writers would rather nail a great characterization of a man than of a woman. It's a macho thing. I'm a guy and I try to write women that are interesting and believable. But a guy that can write from the female POV extremely well time in and time out? Inevitably his sexuality would get called into question--mostly by other guys, maybe as a jealous excuse (for their lack of such writing skills), or maybe because of distrust or denial that a straight guy could know so well what it means to be a woman. I think this--either consciencely or unconsciencely--influences what POV most male writers write in.

No matter how much most guys here will say they're above it, most of us men would rather be known for writing that great, unforgettable male (macho!) character that every guy wants to be rather than writing that great, unforgettable female character that every woman wants to be, all things being equal (meaning, in a hypothetical world you had the talent to write either POV very well but for some stupid reason were only allowed to write one to be remembered by).

Personally, if writing great female POVs happened to be my forte and the only way I could get published, I'd take it in a heartbeat. That said, yeah, I would rather be known for writing great characters of both sexes, but if I could only be remembered for or associated to one, I'd rather be the guy who wrote Indy Jones over the guy that can write Indy's female version.

I don't think women would necessarily have the same problem. I think men are more concerned with appearing too feminine than women are of appearing too masculine in regards to the way we all write. In this respect, maybe Maestro is right in citing our primitiveness as a cause of a lack of good female POVs from male authors.

Back to the original question on this thread, aren't most romance novels written by females, a lot of them writing in a male POV?

Okay, let my persecution/crucifixion/condemnation begin!

I am male, and the first character who I set out to write a novel about, my all-time favorite creation who I have since written eight books about, is female.

But in terms of perspective and personality, I would probably say that for her, being a woman is secondary to being the guilt-ridden greatest of legendary warriors who has killed tens of thousands of people with her own hands, been forced to watch many friends die and even kill some of them herself, never gets a break from battling for her life against overwhelming obstacles from all fronts (physical enemies, problems in her interpersonal relationships, and her own doubts all at the same time), and has terrible, terrible luck- but is strong enough to defy fate itself and do things like break prophecies and literally walk (!) out of hell, and tries to remain optimistic no matter how much she suffers, which is quite a lot.

It's a role a male character could have done equally well with a few adjustments, but I have a thing for the tormented epic female warrior who just can't seem to die, no matter how badly she gets butchered in her fights. :D

I have two other novel-length works, and one has a male lead while the other has a female. The guy is a barkeep who lives happily with his beloved pregnant wife along with a young son. He also happens to be an amnesiac warrior who once defeated the great dark lord of his land. But there is also a strong female warrior in this book who is also a major POV character, who used to be his love and will do anything to win him back.

The girl in the other novel is a child of incest who at first tries very hard to impress her father and prove herself a worthy offspring to him, only to have her world shattered by the knowledge of her birth and that her great father is not so great as she thinks. She is also one of the best warriors in her land, and the one who winds up destroying her kingly father in the end.

Yes, I love my legendary warriors, and yes, David Gemmel is my favorite author. Aye, laddie! :)

[Cathy C]

I think one of the largest problems with a man writing a woman is that there are so many versions of what a woman consists of, and he has to pick just ONE. I'm a woman, but apparently I don't "think" like one. Nor do any of my friends. While I know there are those who are hardwired to shop 'til they drop, or are consumed by emotion (to the point of being unable to function during a crisis), many are just as capable of setting aside fear, anguish and rage to deal with said crisis as any man.

Unfortunately, a man writing this sort of character is immediately stigmatized for his failure to "grasp the soul of a woman" than if a woman had written it. It's why so many men who write romance have to stoop to using female pen names to be taken seriously. We humans are overall a very shallow society, with built-in social mores (IMO.)

As for gender vs. sex, I'm afraid I don't see the distinction since this wasn't a linguistic discussion--but instead, one based on the realities of writing. As far as books are concerned, there are only two specific genders that a reader deals with, male and female. Whether the male or female has gender "issues" is a character by character thing. It's a trait to be exploited in the text. Within the text, the genders of individual words come up. The English language is somewhat unique in that the same word often has multiple genders, whereas other languages (most notably Spanish) have whole subsets of words which are gender-specific.

It's an interesting discussion, but quite possibly more complicated than the average writer needs to deal with. It's the "voice" that is the issue when writing from the POV of the opposite sex.

JMHO, of course. :)

[ted_curtis]

It's interesting to note that a lot of women could write men well, but not the other way. Why? Because women are more complex/complicated than men? Men are more primitive and easily figured out? :)

The reason I've heard, and one that makes a lot of sense to me, is that the world is (and has been throughout history) run mostly by men. So women have always had to understand the male mind to survive. But on the flip side, men (who have been in charge) don't really think about how women think, except when they want something specific (keeping the conversation PG here...)

I don't remember where I picked this idea up, so I'm sorry I can't give a good source.

[Birol]

There are differences in the way women are treated, too, and therefore in the way they react in different situations. If, as writers, we haven't given a lot of thought to this or examined the way society operates then characters can come across as somewhat unbelievable.

Take for instance if a teenager stays out all night and their parents don't know where they are. Will the parents be worried whether the child is a boy or a girl? Yes. Definitely. Will they be worried about the exact same things happening? No.

Granted, the precise details depend on personality, background, situation, you know, the character, but overall, there are differences between how men and women are treated and therefore how they react and interact.

As writers, I think it's important to study these types of things and looking at writers who have broken the bounds of their gender is a good exercise.

[Medievalist]

As for gender vs. sex, I'm afraid I don't see the distinction since this wasn't a linguistic discussion--but instead, one based on the realities of writing. As far as books are concerned, there are only two specific genders that a reader deals with, male and female. Whether the male or female has gender "issues" is a character by character thing.

That's sex. The minute you isolate it as only two, you're talking sex, not gender. You're talking something that's biologically determined, you're talking XY and XX. That's sex.

And you're still talking linguistics.

Men and women, as broad groups, within specific languages and social-cultural milleus, speak and write differently.

This is not an exact statment, because within the group of Man and Woman there are lots of individuals and they are different.

Word choice, and syntax, again, in broad terms, tend to break down in terms of sex.

There's scads and scads of research about this--one of the first programs I ever worked on was an attempt to identify authors' sex based on textual analysis. It's not anything like perfect, but there are tendencies.

It's a trait to be exploited in the text. Within the text, the genders of individual words come up. The English language is somewhat unique in that the same word often has multiple genders, whereas other languages (most notably Spanish) have whole subsets of words which are gender-specific.

OK. Maestro is going to kill me.

But. You're talking about linguistics now. The gender of words in English and other I.E. languages, lingusitically, has to do with internal vowel changes and suffixes; those that are "weak" because they follow a predictable pattern (or used to) are called "feminine," while those that do not follow the most common predictable patterns are called "strong" and--you guessed it--masculine. Neuter is used for an entirely different set of words where the pattern has changed, and is no longer clearly represented. Most neuter words used to be masculine or feminine.

English, with the exception of so-called suffixed words (waiter/waitress), and a very small group of fossils known as pronouns, has lost most of its gender stuff. Unless you're a linguist. We still know the gender of words.

[Cathy C]

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Medievalist. In the writing of books, sex is gender and gender is sex. They are synonyms. In Roget's Thesaurus (the dictionary version), one of the options for the word is "of gender--masculine, feminine, common, neuter."

"Sex" as a word, to 99.5% of the public, is both a noun and verb. Gender has only ONE meaning to that same 99.5% of the reading public--differentiating between male and female. It's why "women's fiction" as a genre is considered a "gender book".

There's scads and scads of research about this

Yep, and the only thing the researchers agree on is that there's no agreement. ;) The variations of individual personalities are such that any definitive answer winds up being hypothesis and supposition, that's later "disproved" by new evidence.

:Shrug: But for the writing of books, it's a non-issue IMO.

[reph]

I'll bet anything the answer is more a lack of interest in men for writing in a female POV than it is a lack of talent....No matter how much most guys here will say they're above it, most of us men would rather be known for writing that great, unforgettable male (macho!) character that every guy wants to be rather than writing that great, unforgettable female character that every woman wants to be....The qualities associated with masculinity make for a more heroic protagonist than those associated with femininity. I'm talking about archetypes now, not reality, especially not reality in recent years, when the ideal has shifted toward androgyny for both sexes. Men go out into the world and achieve conspicuous, public goals; women stay home to feed the babies and keep the fires lit. Dramatic action allows for a more interesting story than steady nurturance. A protagonist who does archetypically masculine things stands out from the background.

A person of either sex who has developed a good balance of "manly" and "womanly" traits is more interesting than a one-sided person, but there's an aymmetry because society values and rewards "manly" traits more. Girls are under more pressure to progress toward androgyny than boys are.

[Medievalist]

The qualities associated with masculinity make for a more heroic protagonist than those associated with femininity. I'm talking about archetypes now, not reality, especially not reality in recent years, when the ideal has shifted toward androgyny for both sexes. Men go out into the world and achieve conspicuous, public goals; women stay home to feed the babies and keep the fires lit. Dramatic action allows for a more interesting story than steady nurturance. A protagonist who does archetypically masculine things stands out from the background.

A person of either sex who has developed a good balance of "manly" and "womanly" traits is more interesting than a one-sided person, but there's an aymmetry because society values and rewards "manly" traits more. Girls are under more pressure to progress toward androgyny than boys are.

And in specific genres there are underlying protocols for reading (and hence for writing) that suggest "typical" behaviors (and language) for heroes/heroines, villains, etc. Half the fun for writers (and hence for readers) is knowing when to go with and when to change those protocols and expectations. Reph, by the way, is talking about gender, in case anyone wanted to know ;)

[maestrowork]

The qualities associated with masculinity make for a more heroic protagonist than those associated with femininity. I'm talking about archetypes now... because society values and rewards "manly" traits more.

That's an excellent point, and kind of what I was looking for. The traditional boy/girl traits lend to different aspects of storytelling (hero's journey vs. relationship, etc.) Yes, we're talking about gender here but we're only talking about two. It's not to say that women can't be heros and doing all those dragon slaying and baddies shooting (e.g. Lara Croft) but that's still being viewed as a "boy" thing (Lara Croft's target demo is young males). Even in the Lord of the Ring, for example, the heroines are dramatically different. Arwen's heroics are identified as a "girl" thing, while males can identify with Eowyn, who wanted to fight with the "guys."

Half the fun for writers (and hence for readers) is knowing when to go with and when to change those protocols and expectations.

Precisely. Still, there are the expectations especially in genres. You'd be hard pressed to find a male lead in a romance who is SO in touch of his feminine side, unless it's a gay romance, probably. Gender reversal, however, can be subgenre (the Mr. Moms, the Mrs. Doubtfire, etc.).

Interesting.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but Jonathan Carroll writes an excellent female first-person POV in his book Bones of the Moon.

I believe he succeeds not because he chose one aspect of womanhood, as someone upthread described it, and created a character out of that; but because he created a female character. Women, believe it or not, don't come in flavors anymore or less than men do. You can't get a believable character just by saying, "I'm going to write about a tomboy," or "I'm going to write about a man in touch with his feminine side"; if you do, you end up with a stereotypical tomboy or a stereotypical sensitive man. When you say, "This character doesn't think like a woman," you're already falling into stereotypes, because really, what does it mean to "think like a woman"? Think like which woman? While there are societal and physiological differences between men and women, each individual reacts to those differences, inequalities, and obstacles in different ways. It's those individual quirks that make a character, male or female, real.

That said, it was extra cool when Carroll's main character was talking about sexy things and he got it so absolutely right that I had to keep flipping back to the cover page to remind me a guy was writing this. ;)

[Medievalist]

You'd be hard pressed to find a male lead in a romance who is SO in touch of his feminine side, unless it's a gay romance
Maestro--being gay does not mean "feminine," whatever that means, and umm . . . it's pretty clear you've never looked at a gay romance.

The underlying assumptions about gender, sex-roles and role-typing in this thread are fascinating.

[maestrowork]

*sigh* That wasn't what I meant at all. What I mean is gay romance might "allow" feminine/androgynous male characters IF there may be one. But you may not find a feminine or androgynous male lead in a straight romance (or maybe there are; I just don't know about it since I don't read romance). That was my point. Sure, it's an assumption about the genres, but I think it's not far fetched.

[reph]

I just don't know about it since I don't read romance....Ray, I'm sure you know what's coming next, so I won't bother to say it.

I've seen romances where the writers take pains to show that Mr. Male Lead is gentle and caring. He's nice to small children, and he wants some of his own. He's a good listener. Why else would Ms. Female Lead take an interest in him? Surely not for his abs alone.

[maestrowork]

Caring, loving, sensitive doesn't make the male lead feminine/androgynous. This is what I wrote:

But you may not find a feminine or androgynous male lead in a straight romance (or maybe there are; I just don't know about it since I don't read romance)

(see, I try to cover everything. :) )



In that romance, where the male lead is caring, loving, sensitive, touchy-feely, in touch of his feminine side, would the female lead be the same way? Or would there be a certain "role reversal" as in the female lead is more brash, aggressive, etc. that is traditionally associated with being "masculine"? How is the female lead portrayed?

Again, there are all kinds of exceptions here and we will go on and on until the end of time to discuss all these exceptions. And we can bash each other heads in saying "that's not what women are like" or "that's not what men are like." But what is the norm for certain genres? If I pick up a random romance novel, or a random hard sci-fi novel, or a random mystery, what would I find? Or are we making REALLY broad generation about genres that this discussion becomes pointless?

Or let me put it this way, if you're writing certain genres such as detective stories or romance, are there any gender-defined archetypes that a writer should be aware of, and can you cross that line? I do think it's an interesting topic for writers because so much of our markets are defined by demographics such as "young male 20-30," etc. so what does that all mean?

[Birol]

In that romance, where the male lead is caring, loving, sensitive, touchy-feely, in touch of his feminine side, would the female lead be the same way? Or would there be a certain "role reversal" as in the female lead is more brash, aggressive, etc. that is traditionally associated with being "masculine"? How is the female lead portrayed?

It depends.



Or are we making REALLY broad generation about genres

Yes, of course we're talking about generalizations. Without specifics, it is difficult to do much else.

that this discussion becomes pointless?

No, I don't think so.

Or let me put it this way, if you're writing certain genres such as detective stories or romance, are there any gender-defined archetypes that a writer should be aware of,

Yes, there are.

and can you cross that line?

Of course, but as writers, I think it is important to know when we're defying those expectations.

I do think it's an interesting topic for writers because so much of our markets are defined by demographics such as "young male 20-30," etc. so what does that all mean?

It means the same thing it means in any other business or industry. Demographics are a sales and marketing tool.

[reph]

In that romance, where the male lead is caring, loving, sensitive, touchy-feely, in touch of his feminine side, would the female lead be the same way? Or would there be a certain "role reversal" as in the female lead is more brash, aggressive, etc. that is traditionally associated with being "masculine"?A role reversal isn't needed to make the book work, and I wouldn't expect one. The male lead is sensitive and so on because if he weren't, he'd be undesirable as a partner for the female lead. He can't be a cardboard character.

Or let me put it this way, if you're writing certain genres such as detective stories or romance, are there any gender-defined archetypes that a writer should be aware of, and can you cross that line?There are gender-defined stereotypes (not identical with archetypes, but related). In the early years of science fiction, a shameless number of stories included a woman whose functions were, near the beginning of the story, to ask the scientist wide-eyed questions about the operation of the multineutrocyclozapitronometer and, near the end of the story, to get rescued. The market has since moved beyond that.

[maestrowork]

The market has since moved beyond that.

The demsel in distress thing is so over. But how far have we REALLY moved beyond that? For example, in romance, the manditory ending is still "and they live happily ever after."

[veinglory]

The demsel in distress thing is so over. But how far have we REALLY moved beyond that? For example, in romance, the manditory ending is still "and they live happily ever after."

Yes and no, in my opinion. For example I still find it very hard to find romance where the women is not clearly submissive at some point. It still seems to be sufficiently the normal that the blurb often doesn't make it clear (and so avoidable). Yes, there are a lot of books no longer following this model but submissive women still seems mainstream rather than just one of many possibilities...

[reph]

I meant the SF market has moved beyond that. Romance, not necessarily, although the cover illustrations have changed. More of the female models are standing up, and fewer have ripped bodices.

[veinglory]

With the SF you can tell from the blurb, at least in my experience. Yes there are still some damsels but they are no longer the norm... there are an awful lot of good strong heroines now.

[maestrowork]

Oh yeah. We have much stronger female characters. Ripley in Alien(s), for example, is a good one. She is every bit as strong, maybe even stronger, than her male companions. But you have no doubt that she is a woman. So what makes Ripley work?

[veinglory]

I was told Ripley was written as a male part but Sigourney went for it and got it--which my explain the lack of the girly subplots. Does anyone know if that is true?

[maestrowork]

In Alien, she has almost no girly subplot. So I would buy that her role was originally written as a male role. However, in Aliens, they let her be a woman more -- the whole motherly thing with Newt.

[James Buchanan]

Don't know the story about Riply is true... but whatever it's a good thing. It's so hard to convince people that tits don't make you stupid/weak/a pushover.

I really hate reading "weak" characters in general. Everyone has something that makes them strong. The wilting violet is just wrong in my 2c. There is a strong tendancy in m/m fic to feminize one of the characters and it's not good.

Back on point... I've written first POV for the opposite gender and had people rave. A strong, beliveable character is just that... strong and beliveable. If it's well written it doesn't matter what the dynamics between sex of the author and sex of the character are.

[Arden]

I was told Ripley was written as a male part but Sigourney went for it and got it--which my explain the lack of the girly subplots. Does anyone know if that is true?

Yes, this is absolutely true.

[katiemac]

And in specific genres there are underlying protocols for reading (and hence for writing) that suggest "typical" behaviors (and language) for heroes/heroines, villains, etc. Half the fun for writers (and hence for readers) is knowing when to go with and when to change those protocols and expectations. Reph, by the way, is talking about gender, in case anyone wanted to know http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

Agreed.

I'm working on a gender analysis right now of a couple of different films, including Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Both lead characters practically sweat masculinity; in fact, of the two, Brad Pitt's character is more feminine than Angelina Jolie's.

[TrickyFiction]

I had some trouble picking a gender for the hero of the novel I'm working on right now. So, I decided to just not choose one right away. I wrote the entire first chapter from the MC's perspective without any reference to gender. Then, I circulated it among all my friends and family and asked what gender they thought the character was. Turns out he's a guy.

Some said female, but very few, and their only good reason was that it was written from a first person perspective, and I am a woman. Those who chose male had a much more rational reason. They said that he picks up a hitchhiker, and not one of them could imagine a smart woman doing that. It would be too much of a stretch for them. So, I wrote him as a man.

It was an awesome experiment, and a fun way to pick a gender. Although I do need to work on writing women because I suck at writing them. My females are always either too wishywashy, or I have overcorrected and written them too feisty. HA! So... yeah... this was... kind of on topic.

[pdr]

...most of us men would rather be known for writing that great, unforgettable male (macho!) character that every guy wants to be...

You mean the great Hemingway myth?

Sigh!

And thank you for the Alien information. I wondered why I found the Ripley character so unlikeable and unbelievable. She was a woman trying to be a man in part written for a man anyway!

Why must women today equate equality between the sexes as meaning being as good as a man? And why do women think that the 'macho' man is good? I see all these younger women adopting all those macho masculine traits that people in this thread have called strong and do include boozing, fighting, fornicating (can't use the Anglo-Saxon on this board.) and violence verbally and physically. I mean Ernest Hemingway is your US macho man role model and he did all these things. Are they strong? Are they good?

I fought hard in the early years of the 60s feminist movement for equality, equality in employment, opportunities and the right to be treated as an equal member of the human race. The fight goes on around the world but it seems that where we succeeded in our home countries the women who came after the feminists had done the hard work didn't want equality did they? They wanted to out-man the men. I hoped we women could be better than the men and provide new role models for both sexes, but all I seem to see are women who are as bad as men.

Argh!

If you want to write a strong female lead, Mastro, please don't admire Ripley. Go and do some research into, say, the women of Northern Ireland, the ordinary women, like the journalist who was murdered by the IRA because she was making people think about prejudice, or those who formed groups and finally brought in a kind of peace. They didn't use macho skills and they had to be strong in the face of those macho IRA and PDR men's death threats to their children, and their relatives.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

You know what? I liked Ripley. And I also really liked the fourth movie (Resurrection). I'm a sucker for the mother-and-child motif, and it was expressed very unusually in that movie. Please, Maestro, feel free to admire Ripley as much as your heart desires!

[Diana Hignutt]

Having been both genders, I'll toss my two cents in here. People are people. People are unique. People are more themselves than they are some gender POV. Ultimately, write good characters, let the characters be who they want to be, and don't get too hung up on the gender POV thing.

[maestrowork]

Diana, I agree. But still, from your perspective being a transgender person, what are the differences you perceive as far as gender is concerned, the expectations, the reactions, the treatments, etc. People are people and we should respect them for who they are, etc., but I am sure you probably act and react as a woman differently than when you were a man. I think you can give us some insight on this.

For example, if I were to write a story about a transgender person, what kind of traps would I get into if I write the character as a) too feminine, b) too masculine, and c) too neutral? Obviously, one idea is to just write the best character I can and forget about the gender issues, but I don't think it's really possible to ignore that. Yes? For example, I saw Transamerica and wondered how mainstream America reacts to it, and how the transgender community react to it as well.

I'd like to keep this discussion to writing-related, though.

[PastMidnight]

I had some trouble picking a gender for the hero of the novel I'm working on right now. So, I decided to just not choose one right away. I wrote the entire first chapter from the MC's perspective without any reference to gender. Then, I circulated it among all my friends and family and asked what gender they thought the character was. Turns out he's a guy.


What a great idea!

[Birol]

Why must women today equate equality between the sexes as meaning being as good as a man? And why do women think that the 'macho' man is good?

There are books and books written on this subject. In the field of Literary Criticism, people have devoted their careers to answering this question.

[Medievalist]

I am sure you probably act and react as a woman differently than when you were a man. I think you can give us some insight on this.

The point of transgendering is to match the external to the internal.

Diana has always been "Diana."

[katiemac]

Why must women today equate equality between the sexes as meaning being as good as a man? And why do women think that the 'macho' man is good?


It's not as much about being "as good as a man" as it is about obtaining masculine qualities. Masculine qualities have always included strength, power, leadership, etc, while feminine qualities are more compassionate, passive, etc. It's not to say both sexes can't be both genders, but society hasn't quite progressed that far yet to accept it as norm so we lose the "masculine" and "feminine" labels for such qualities.


Women are encouraged more than ever to aspire to any identity they wish -- masculine, feminine, whatever. Men, however, have been stuck in a linear motion for a long time -- the idea of a "macho man" still wins in today's society. The heterosexual "breadwinner" still is the culturally accepted norm for men's behaviors and it's harder for men to appeal to anything different than it is for women.


The lines between associating gender with sex are blurring, but stereotypes still maintain the distinctions.

[veinglory]

Why must women today equate equality between the sexes as meaning being as good as a man?

Woman aren't as good as men?--I am sure you didn't mean this line literally.

Consider this. I am a woman who dresses in jeans, with short hair, no romantic partner and a science job that demands both a Phd and the ability to do hard physical labour--in may spare time I write pornography for fun and profit. I love my life.

A few decades ago I would have been forced into being 'girly' or treated like a freak. You need to consider whether these 'macho young women' are abnormal, or a lot of traits once considered masculine are in fact no such thing.

Many girls like being beautiful, nurturing and gentle--so do some men. These days we are begining to have more options when it comes to being 'real' men and women.

[reph]

Masculine qualities... feminine qualities... It's not to say both sexes can't be both genders, but society hasn't quite progressed that far yet to accept it as norm so we lose the "masculine" and "feminine" labels for such qualities.Society isn't solely responsible for that labeling. Our psyches do it, too. Yin and yang. Anima and animus. One episode of the first Star Trek had the transporter malfunctioning so that Kirk's personality was split in half. Either part, by itself, made a pathetic person. The two parts had to rejoin before Kirk could function adequately.

[maestrowork]

The point of transgendering is to match the external to the internal.

Diana has always been "Diana."

I think it's better if Diana explains it.

[katiemac]

Society isn't solely responsible for that labeling. Our psyches do it, too. Yin and yang. Anima and animus.

You're right.

[veinglory]

(of course every person has both anima and animus in them whether they are male or female)

[pdr]

I've got two days' hard yacker ahead and must go but would you like to think about this?

What you are assuming, that the macho man is a series of genetic sexual traits that makes a man male is NOT so!!! Those traits are as much a result of conditioning by our cultures and society as the weak little woman myth.

So why would women be daft enough to copy those traits? We had an opportunity back in the 60s to rewrite those traits. We failed. Now we see women trying to out macho the men or men trying to find their weak little woman side.
Sigh!

[katiemac]

What you are assuming, that the macho man is a series of genetic sexual traits that makes a man male is NOT so!!! Those traits are as much a result of conditioning by our cultures and society as the weak little woman myth.

So why would women be daft enough to copy those traits? We had an opportunity back in the 60s to rewrite those traits. We failed. Now we see women trying to out macho the men or men trying to find their weak little woman side.
Sigh!

They're not genetic sexual traits. I believe this was the point Medievalist was trying to make in the earlier part of the thread.

Feminine and masculine gender types have nothing to do with being a female or male sex. Gender takes a form partially from social constructioning and conditioning, as you put it. Sex is biology.

Women aren't trying to copy the traits, because both male and female sexes have the gender traits to begin with. The masculine gender traits (whether in the hands of a man or woman) are still generally perceived as more powerful.

[Ardellis]

The masculine gender traits (whether in the hands of a man or woman) are still generally perceived as more powerful.

What I think is more telling is that the traits that are perceived as being powerful are almost invariably classified as masculine.

[katiemac]

What I think is more telling is that the traits that are perceived as being powerful are almost invariably classified as masculine.

Yes, it's the same idea.

[Medievalist]

They're not genetic sexual traits. I believe this was the point Medievalist was trying to make in the earlier part of the thread.

Feminine and masculine gender types have nothing to do with being a female or male sex. Gender takes a form partially from social constructioning and conditioning, as you put it. Sex is biology.

Women aren't trying to copy the traits, because both male and female sexes have the gender traits to begin with. The masculine gender traits (whether in the hands of a man or woman) are still generally perceived as more powerful.

Yep.

There are secondary sex characteristics, many of which are driven by hormones.

Women on certain steroids and certain hormones will have changes to their skin, voices, clitoris, hair and breasts. And the chemistry of their tears, interestingly enough.

Different chemicals/hormones have different effects--and different people react differently to them as well.

Men on certain hormones and chemicals will grow breasts, lose certain vocal qualities, and experience other changes associated with secondary sex characteristics.

Some changes do affect personaity, mood and behavior.

But many behavior characteristics and attitudes are culturally shaped--and as humans, we're, theoretically, capable of rising above our reptillian hind brains and biologies. That's the thing I wish we would focus on--looking at the person, the individual, rather than associating the person with a group for convenience.

For writers, especially, I'd think it is a little foolish to think in terms of "masculine" or "feminine"--instead just discover/create the character, learn how the character thinks, behaves and sounds. Don't worry about labeling the character--if you have any luck at all, people from a variety of times, cultures, races, classes, areas, and languages will read your work. If there's going to be labeling done, let the readers do it--you can't control them anyway.

[Diana Hignutt]

Diana, I agree. But still, from your perspective being a transgender person, what are the differences you perceive as far as gender is concerned, the expectations, the reactions, the treatments, etc. People are people and we should respect them for who they are, etc., but I am sure you probably act and react as a woman differently than when you were a man. I think you can give us some insight on this.

For example, if I were to write a story about a transgender person, what kind of traps would I get into if I write the character as a) too feminine, b) too masculine, and c) too neutral? Obviously, one idea is to just write the best character I can and forget about the gender issues, but I don't think it's really possible to ignore that. Yes? For example, I saw Transamerica and wondered how mainstream America reacts to it, and how the transgender community react to it as well.

I'd like to keep this discussion to writing-related, though.

Sorry to take so long to get back to this...very busy day yesterday...

POV is about the invisible "I" of a person, in my mind. That "I" just is. As far as science goes, we still don't know where in the brain, or wherever, this "I" is based. At it's core this "I" is may be a dispassionate observer, but it is filtered through our bodies with their hormonal reactions, emotions, environment and history. The precise hormonal balance, environment and personal history is what makes us unique; it is that which adds the colors through which the "I" percieves things.

In that sense, sure, we can see gender differences in POV's. My original point was supposed to be more about avoiding stereotypes, but it may not have come out that way.

You are exactly right about (gender) POV being about expectations and treatments by and of others and our selves. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that men and women are the same, just that inside there are far more similarities than differences, but it is by our exteriors that people react to us. So maybe we're talking about a history of reactions of others to ourselves that form our POV. That reaction can drive us each differently.

Am I a different person now as Diana as I was years ago as Tim? Of course, changing my exterior to match my interior, profoundly affected every aspect of my personality. Confidence replaced secrecy and shame. Courage replaced fear. But confidence and courage aren't generally percieved as "Female" traits. If I may quote Sara Kelly, editor of the Philadelphia Weekly:

"Speak to enough of Diana's friends and family, and the reaction all starts sounding the same--and not very reactionary. Diana is the same person Tim was, only better. Where Tim was quiet, Diana is outspoken. "Don't lie to me," she tells a reporter. If her book is good, great, but if it sucks, she can take the criticism. No need to sugarcoat reality for someone who's already had a pretty hefty dose of it.
Where Tim was shy, Diana is confident. She feels good in her new body. And she looks good."

I think Sara's comments are very relevant to this discussion and your question (except the part about me looking good, which I just couldn't leave out).

So in many ways, becoming a woman brought out more traditionally "male" traits in my personality and outlook on the world.

However, sure, guys occassionally open doors for me. Most people treat me much nicer than they used to--I can't tell you if that is because I'm female or if it's because I'm simply more comfortable with myself now. Which is why, probably, my claim to have been both genders rings a little hollow, and my insight into such matters might not be that universally applicable. I wasn't very good at being a guy.

For the record, a big part of my novel, Empress of Clouds, addresses the POV shift of my transformed MC, and there I've given it much more time and thought than I have here.

As to writing the transgendered (i.e. in this example M-to-F), I don't know what traps you could fall into. Writng the character as too masculine? Well, since these folks were socialized as men, presumably there will be a good bit of masculine behavior. Too feminine? These folks are trying really hard to be embrace traditionally feminine behaviors and to be accepted as women. Many do, in fact, lay on the femininity a bit hard. (Me? I run around in jeans and sneakers most of the time). Too neutral? I'm not sure you can be too neutral--which, to me, sounds like too balanced.

So, in summary, it's fine to use some gender stereotypes, but, as someone said, gender is a continuum, not black or white, so use them sparingly. People are more themselves than they are some preconceived, stereotypical gender behaviors. And each person's POV changes constantly...just like it's never the same river, we are never the same people as we were yesterday...that's one of the most important things to remember when writing from any POV in my opinion.

I hope this kind of answers your question, Ray.

[Aconite]

I'm particularly interested in how manga readers and creators approach this issue. Yaoi written by women for women seems to be very different than gay romance written by men for men (I admit, my sample pool is small). And lesbian romance written by lesbians for lesbians isn't at all like lesbian romance written by or for men--though I suppose that's because that last category is erotica, really, since I know of no lesbian romances written for men.

Just checking--y'all know about the Tiptree Award, yes?

[maestrowork]

Thanks, Diana. That's very enlightening.

[victoria.goddard]

I've been following this discussion with interest, being a woman writing a book from a male POV (something that used to bother me, until I realised that there are in fact many books written by a person of one sex in the other POV), and, while I have nothing so deep or interesting or personal to follow off of Diana's post, I have been reminded of two books, one I read a number of years ago--The Phoenix Guards, by Stephen Brust--and one I read quite recently--Perelandra, by CS Lewis.

The reason I bring The Phoenix Guards up is because one of the things that stuck with me concering that story world is that the societal expectations of men and women are the same--that is, there are no assumed roles that are more 'masculine' or 'feminine', apart from the purely biological parts of reproduction, of course. The narrative conceit includes a fictional editor, who discusses the difficulty of writing about this particular culture in a language which has no pronoun for a combined gender (as opposed to a neutral one, which is 'it'), whereas the culture does have that category--ambo ('both'), I suppose, to go along with neuter ('neither').

Again, I haven't read the book in a few years, but it might be interesting to look back at it again in order to see how well Brust managed to pull off a world where the masculine and feminine (as opposed to the biological male and female) are interechangeable.

Perelandra, on the other hand, concludes with a resounding appreciation for gender (fundamentally linguistic) as being of universal importance--that 'male' and 'female' (biologically) are important insofar as they participate in the 'masculine' and the 'feminine' (gender, linguistic and social). It's the second of Lewis' Space Trilogy, and the first, Out of the Silent Planet, is about the male, and the second the female. Different ideas and ideals about both permeate the books and are occasionally discussed outright, particularly in Perelandra (also known as Voyage to Venus).

Just a few thoughts. Sorry this is such a long post!

[Albannach]

James Tiptree, Jr.

No further comment. :)

[willietheshakes]

James Tiptree, Jr.

No further comment. :)

You've been holding that in for three and a half years?

[Albannach]

lol no... but why was this thread near the top. Didn't look at the date. Funny. Now we can let it quietly die.