women write better women books

[writersliving]

I think women :welcome: write better books about women, because we are really in the shoes of a women. men all they do is write about how they think being a women is. they don't know really how it is. that's why I think people like Eric jermone dickey. who write alot about relonships and cheating. he don't really know how it can make a women feel. we do so we can write plenty better books about us.

[Count_LeCo]

Firstly, I am a man, so take from that what you will in my following post:



I have two things to say in reply. First, my fiancee agrees with you. She only enjoys books written about women and by women. She says that men don't and can't write from a women's p.o.v. She likes to read stories with women protagonists because she likes to put herself in their role.

Second, I think in older times, it was more apparent who was a woman writer and who was a man writer, in terms of literature anyway. I read through most of Bronte's Wuthering Heights convinced the narrarator was a woman simply because Bronte's style was womanly. Jane Austen is also an uncloseted woman writer. But nowadays, women write in the same style as men, because editors want a certain kind of publication.

Then again, my fiancee still can't enjoy books written by men, particularly about women.

And I have to say, I was thinking about this question earlier today, but taking it further, "Has anyone ever written about a black woman's experience who is not herself a black woman?"

[maestrowork]

In general I'd say it is a challenge for a man to write from a woman's perspective. But it's not impossible and some male writers do beautifully. So I think it really depends on the writer. For example, Larry McMurtry has given us some really outstanding female characters. King's Misery and Carrie also rang true. On the other hand, I couldn't get into Nick Horby's female protagonist in "How to be Good" because she reads like a man. She doesn't ring true to me.

[Niggle]

My partner (male) said the same thing about How to be Good, Maestro.

For me, this generalisation doesn't hold water. A talented male writer is going to write better women characters than a ham-fisted female writer. An empathic male writer with a gift for observation is going to write better women characters than an insular female writer who blocks out the rest of the world. I guess that you could say that a female writer will have something of a head start on female characters than an equally capable male writer, and vice versa for the male characters. But then, gender is a relatively small part of character IMO so I don't think the advantage is likely to be decisive in a large number of cases. Physical aspects are a slightly different matter, I guess, but then writers can always ask members of the opposite sex about them, and there's still a tremendous variety of experience that there's room for some creative invention, I think.

But don't mind me. I hate all generalisations!!! ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

I think women :welcome: write better books about women, because we are really in the shoes of a women. men all they do is write about how they think being a women is. they don't know really how it is. that's why I think people like Eric jermone dickey. who write alot about relonships and cheating. he don't really know how it can make a women feel. we do so we can write plenty better books about us.

I don't think this is true in any way. That's like saying women writers should include male characters in their books because they aren't men and don't know how men really feel.

I know exactly how women feel because they tell me and show me. If you can't write convicingly about the opposite gender, you can't write at all, whether you're a man or a woman.

All male writers use female characters, and alll female writers use male characters. We're all human, and any good writer can write well about the opposite gender.

[Jamesaritchie]

And I have to say, I was thinking about this question earlier today, but taking it further, "Has anyone ever written about a black woman's experience who is not herself a black woman?"

Yes. It's been done many, many times.

[SJB]

... unmitigated rubbish, I think. The truly great writers can write convincing characters of either sex. I doubt that anyone who did not know the gender of George Eliot would read Middemarch and conclude, "Aha! Chick lit."

Sappho could have been a man. Browning could have been a woman (Robert, I mean; though I suppose that his wife could have been a man just as easily).

(This post is sounding increasingly unsavoury).

A bad male writer has no more hope of creating a realistic male than he has of writing convincingly from a woman's point of view, I think.

[WriteRight]

I agree with Niggle: I hate all generalisations!!! ;)

I remember reading The Collector by John Fowles, where the first half of the book is His POV (the main character) and the second half is Her POV (his captive) - both were equally riveting reading.

[Optimus]

I agree that the initial assertion in this thread is rubbish.

However, I think it's also interesting to think about how much expectation and biases affect the perception of stories. If you pick up a book and see the gender of the author on it, you already go into the reading of that book with certain biases and expectations related to gender that will affect your perception of that book, whether you realize it or not.

For instance, if an author (like Thomas Wolfe or Nicholas Sparks) wrote under a female pseudonym and the females never knew it was a male writing these stories about strong, complex, romantic, emotional female characters, would the skeptical female know that a man had written it, if that man was a truly gifted writer?

I doubt it.

Same goes for a gifted female author writing a generally "male dominated" genre (such as sci fi or horror) under a male name. Would the males be able to tell?

Also doubtful.

If Anne Rice had published all of her vamp stories under a male name, would a male reader have been able to tell it was a female author?

If John Grisham or Steven King published their most successful stories under female pseudonyms, would the females have been able to tell?

I say "no" in both cases.

There are writers of both genders who write very well in genres regarded to be "opposite" their gender.

Just proves that it's really about skill, not sex.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

I submit that Jonathan Carroll's Bones of the Moon is an excellent, excellent example of a man writing a novel from a female first-person point of view. There were a good three or four points in the book where I caught myself saying things out loud like, "Yes! That's exactly how it is!" I kept flipping back to the cover, and the back-cover author photo, to remind myself that the author was male.

I find myself wondering why this thread was started in the first place. I mean, if the initiating post were along the lines of, "Hey, I'm male, but I have this great idea for a story from a woman's point of view; do y'all think it can be done?" well, I wouldn't bat an eye. Or an "I," considering the first-person POV such a writer might want to use. Or, "Hey, what do y'all think about cross-gender POV?" to start a discussion. But that doesn't seem to have been the case.

writersliving, were you just venting, or hoping to discourage male writers from even trying, or did you just word your conversation starter infelicitously? I ask, because broad proclamations about what half the population can't do tend to bring out the surly side in me, and I would like to think I was rendered surly for a good reason. ;)

[veinglory]

As a woman I write almost exclusively from male POV, so I certainly hope it isn't true. I think they idea that you can only write what you are seriously under-estimates wht fiction is -- for reader and writer!

[Mark Anderson]

It's almost a definition of a fiction writer's job to be able to write about things he or she has not directly experienced. There's plenty of convincing fantasy by those who've never ridden a dragon, plenty of great mysteries by folks who aren't murderers, and so on.

Having direct experience of being a woman, or black, or riding dragons might make it easier to get into the heads of your characters, but doesn't make the story inherently better.

[maestrowork]

Writers observe. Clearly we can all observe women -- a whole range of women. And write about them.

[ZaZ]

Can a man accurately display the proper passion and ire of a woman, say, with PMS after breaking a nail and getting dumped by an imbecile she was planning on leaving that afternoon all the while searching and clawing for that mythical red leather Coach bag to charge on his credit card during the short span of her lunch break from a distressing corporate gig she'll never leave?

I'm not sure.

Could I, as a male writer, really get into running around stores for the perfect purse, down to the last pad and virtually homicidal from the only time the other sex got one over on my more sane than I make appear female character?

It's all so irrelevant and meaningless. I'm going to the bar.

[Vipersniper]

:Soapbox: Well I have always suspected so many of the writers of romantic novels you know the ones at Walmart are written by men. Especially those graphic sexaul scenes on every other page. But some men can get into a woman's perspective and it may be that they run a scenario by a female that they know. I know to write a man's role that I pick the brain of my husband especially in the law enforcement field or I just sit back and watch a strong character such as a sexy surgeon in my opinion work. So I make friends with men that I consider to be intelligent and ask questions. The same is true if they are asking me what a woman would say in a situation where we are both creating a scene between two strong willed characters. The PMS thing is definetly something that a woman knows but then the man knows how to do a karate hold for a fight scene so it goes both ways.

[Optimus]

"How do you write women so well?"

"I think of a man...and I take away reason and accountability."

Julie Benz and Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets."

:tongue

[reph]

So many people on Internet discussion boards have called me "he" that I wonder whether my prose style is masculine, if there is such a thing as a masculine style. (I'm a she.) Of course, male is still the default sex even though we got the vote and all, so maybe their mistake was only an unthinking assumption.

[Maryn]

I get the same thing, reph. This is the only internet board or chat where I have a gender-specific name. I'm not sure that was wise. I'm treated very differently when people presume I'm a man.

If it's the worst mistake I make here, I'll be doing all right, though, don'tcha think?

Maryn

[veinglory]

There is an online form somewhere that judges gender from a writing sample -- it picked me as male. I also have people in forums assuming I am a guy all the time. not that it bothers me... :tongue

[stormie]

There is an online form somewhere that judges gender from a writing sample -- it picked me as male. I also have people in forums assuming I am a guy all the time. not that it bothers me... :tongue

That's a good one! On another forum, I use my initials. Everyone who responds assumes I'm male.

Anyway, I write from male and female POV. My short stories that have been published are from both POV.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Since high school, I have used the handle "vortexae" from time to time. (Usually "Vortex" was taken.) And from time to time, I have been called "V-man" for it. It amuses me.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think the problem is in thinking that a woman knows how women think and react, or that a man knows how men think and react. All any of us know is how we react on a personal level. Everythng else is observation.

Find a hundred women who are cheated on, and you'll find a hundred and one different emotions and reactions. Same with PMS. No two women react to PMS exactly the same.

And all men are individuals, as well.

If you can't write well about anyone through interaction and observation, you're in deep trouble as a writer, regardless of gender.

[Anaparenna]

For my part, I did rather respond to She's Come Undone. And I've happily only read works that I thought were particularly well done, which include women-writing-men, and men-writing-women. I must be lucky in my reading. IMO, when you draw a gender line, you get an overly obvious effort to create a character type based on a stereotype, rather than creating a character.

[BlueTexas]

Well I have always suspected so many of the writers of romantic novels you know the ones at Walmart are written by men. Especially those graphic sexaul scenes on every other page. .

Books sold at Wal-Mart are bad? I'm not sure that's what you meant, but it sounded that way. Why don't you think women would write graphic sexual scenes?

[rhymegirl]

Yes, Wally Lamb did a great job with the novel, She's Come Undone. The narrator is a young woman. You would swear a woman wrote this book.

I agree that it is a challenge for a writer to get into a member of the opposite sex's skin, but if you're good you can do it.

[Fresie]

If you take a closer look at Leo Tolstoy's works -- all of them -- you'll notice that he doesn't have a single _positive_ female character. All his heroines are either bit*ches, or whimps, or blue stockings. He possessed all the artistic mastery and psychological insight in the world, but his natural dislike of women led to this lack of objectivity.

I don't read him any more ! :-) I'm of a better opinion of my gender!

[JanaLanier]

What about Memoirs of a Geisha? It amazed me that it was written by a man. It's a very 'woman centric' book. (It's a wonderful read as well).

[mistri]

Lots of men can write women well, and vice versa. Unfortunately, there are some who struggle. I don't tend to even notice it often, as I usually think in terms of character, not gender.

[Jamesaritchie]

[QUOTE=Fresie]If you take a closer look at Leo Tolstoy's works -- all of them -- you'll notice that he doesn't have a single _positive_ female character. All his heroines are either bit*ches, or whimps, or blue stockings. He possessed all the artistic mastery and psychological insight in the world, but his natural dislike of women led to this lack of objectivity.

I don't read him any more ! :-) I'm of a better opinion of my gender![/QUOTE

I think Tolstoy wrote some of the better women characters of anyone, anywhere. I'm not sure what you want in a "positive" character, but Tolstoyu's women were extremely realistic. He wrote about woemn who were interesting, realistic, and in many cases, women taken right from the pages of history.

We must be reading a different Tolstoy. Being objective means getting it right, and Tolstoy got his female characters very right. In fact, I can't thibnk of a single work of tolstoy's that doesn't have strong, positive, realistic women. Especially Anna Karenina, and War and Peace. Though at some 1,400 pages, War and Peace is quite a read.

As many have said, Tolstoy didn;t write novels, he wrote real life and real people.

If I have a single complaint about male/female writers, it's that women writers tend to make women character more positve, stronger, and more capable that any real woman is, and male writers too often do the same thing with male characters.

Whatever else Tolstoy did, he created female characters who really lived, and who were dead on true to life.

[TemlynWriting]

Yes, Wally Lamb did a great job with the novel, She's Come Undone. The narrator is a young woman. You would swear a woman wrote this book.

I agree that it is a challenge for a writer to get into a member of the opposite sex's skin, but if you're good you can do it.

I wrote a story several years ago, and my main character was a male. Everyone who's read it (so far) has told me that I "really got into the guy's mind." I've been told that I think like a guy. I guess that can be a good (or not-so-good) thing! ;)

[reph]

I've been told that I think like a guy.
Don't feel bad. I've been told that I think like a lawyer.

[Fresie]

Whatever else Tolstoy did, he created female characters who really lived, and who were dead on true to life.

I'm dying to disagree. :Ssh: Realistic, yes. You can portray an alcoholic selling her child into slavery and still do it with compassion and realism. And while Tolstoy makes me wholeheartedly sympathise with a poor woman who suffers from the seven-year-itch and dumps her family for the first cool guy that happened to pass by -- and then kills herself in a bout of premenopausal depression -- still, that's what the character of Anna Karenina boils down to. A typical woman she is not, sorry.

And the clue to it lies in Tolstoy's personal life -- in all his female characters, we can notice traces of his much-hated wife...:cry:

[Anaparenna]

Realistic, yes. You can portray an alcoholic selling her child into slavery and still do it with compassion and realism.



This is very interesting, and sent me into a swarm of thoughts. With all respect to you, Fresie (I found your comments enlightening, btw), does a portrayal of an alcoholic woman selling her child into slavery have to be compassionate in order to be realistic? Are women (in fiction) stereotyped with higher ideals of compassion than men? Also, just because he hated his wife, does that mean he hated all women? I couldn't say on the last bit, I'm not nearly knowledgable to take on the Tolstoy scholars. But if we assume he hated his wife, then aren't we stereotyping him in assuming he created all his female characters based on that hate?

[Fresie]

does a portrayal of an alcoholic woman selling her child into slavery have to be compassionate in order to be realistic?

No, of course not, I used it as an extreme example (although I do believe that a writer should portray every character with compassion and understanding, but that's another story and another thread). But as for stereotyping women as deserving more compassion -- I completely agree with you, it's not fair and shouldn't really happen.

All I wanted to say was that Tolstoy -- as a good example of a male writer who managed to portray women remarkably realistically and with compassion -- actually exercised a double standard. (And yes, his biographers and critics believe his personal life affected his writing matter, but I really shouldn't have mentioned that, it's none of my business whatsoever. ) But objectively, he has many wonderful, equally realistic male characters who have become role models for many generations -- brave, intelligent, spiritual men. People who read Tolstoy's books, I'm sure were fascinated with the characters of Levin, Pierre or Prince Andrew. They really inspire the readers, both men and women, to be better people -- kind, thoughtful, courageous. In one word, really -- role models.

Now try to name one female in his books who does that! They are all wonderfully believable and recognizable as far as the literary mastery goes. At the same time, they're petty, vain, stupid, or all three. No woman can accept a Tolstoy's heroine as a role model. Even Natasha in War and Peace, so delightfully spiritual and selfless in the beginning, turns into a dumb vegetable in the end.

Now isn't that a double standard? Coming from one of the biggest writers that ever lived?

[veinglory]

Books sold at Wal-Mart are bad? I'm not sure that's what you meant, but it sounded that way. Why don't you think women would write graphic sexual scenes?

It is an interesting question that I may steal over to the erotica forum to discuss fully. I am certainly aware that erotica for and by females is a huge growth market at the moment. At the same time, it wasn't until I was over 30 that I got over being squicked out by explicit sex scenes and only recently that I really got into them (now erotica is my major writing area).

My take on it is that women are conditioned to avoid this material and find it distasteful? If so I have overcome my conditionaing very well. I had a party recently and someone grabbed a book off the shelf to prop up the end a boardgame. They were more embarrassed than me when they looked at the cover...

[SJB]

Fresie, you make such an interesting point there. Both War and Peace and Anna Karenina are great novels, but I cannot think of a single female character in either whom I'd want to emulate. I'd never been struck by that before- but it's true.

Thanks. :)

PS. I greatly envy you the ability to read them in the original! I'm just stuck with translations, for the time being.

[Fresie]

I'm just stuck with translations, for the time being.

"For the time being" -- are you studying Russian? Still, there're some very good translations around -- mind you, Tolstoy's one of those writers who are quite easy to translate. He has a very simple, straightforward style -- no flourishes.

[BlueTexas]

It is an interesting question that I may steal over to the erotica forum to discuss fully. I am certainly aware that erotica for and by females is a huge growth market at the moment. At the same time, it wasn't until I was over 30 that I got over being squicked out by explicit sex scenes and only recently that I really got into them (now erotica is my major writing area).

My take on it is that women are conditioned to avoid this material and find it distasteful? If so I have overcome my conditionaing very well. I had a party recently and someone grabbed a book off the shelf to prop up the end a boardgame. They were more embarrassed than me when they looked at the cover...

While I'm not a fan of explicit sex scenes, I am a fan of women writing things outside of the role society imposes on them, as was implied by the original post in this. Men too, for that matter. Minds should be open, rather than sqeezed into little one-size-fits-all nooks.

Good for you for overcoming your conditioning!

[SJB]

I'm just stuck with translations, for the time being.

"For the time being" -- are you studying Russian? Still, there're some very good translations around -- mind you, Tolstoy's one of those writers who are quite easy to translate. He has a very simple, straightforward style -- no flourishes.

Hi Fresie! I have not yet begun to study Russian. I have several books and plan to start seriously learning it later this year- once I've got more Italian under my belt. Russian is attractive to me not only because of all the great literature (and good looking Russians :)) but also because of the funky alphabet! I'm in my second year of studying Ancient Greek, which I began for the same reason. :)

Na'zdarovie!

[SJB]

While I'm not a fan of explicit sex scenes, I am a fan of women writing things outside of the role society imposes on them, as was implied by the original post in this. Men too, for that matter. Minds should be open, rather than sqeezed into little one-size-fits-all nooks.

Good for you for overcoming your conditioning!

Well said, Blue. :Thumbs: That's something that gets my goat as well.

[SJB]

What about Memoirs of a Geisha? It amazed me that it was written by a man. It's a very 'woman centric' book. (It's a wonderful read as well).

Yes! I loved, loved, loved that book. Arthur Golden is an excellent writer. His metaphorical language is particularly wonderful; his similes are never hackneyed, his metaphors are never trite. It's just exquisite writing. (And what a story.)

[mommie4a]

There's a fiction book called One Thousand White Women which is by Jim Fergus but written from a woman's view. It's a bit uneven, but overall, he does a good job. And I did love most of She's Come Undone, but I felt like he rushed the end and it was too "pat" as it resolved. But I didn't attribute that to the author being male. So, I'm probably in the camp that says, women know women, anyone with talent/skill can probably do either gender justice, but...writers of the same gender as their protagonist will probably have an edge.

[Lady Brick]

What about Memoirs of a Geisha? It amazed me that it was written by a man. It's a very 'woman centric' book. (It's a wonderful read as well).

Bleh, that was my example :p I agree that it is an amazing book, not just in terms of writing from the perspective of a different gender, but a different culture and time period as well.

But I might be biased because I met Arthur Golden when I was in high school and he was very nice even though I was a bit obnoxious, and sent me an autographed book after he found out I borrowed my teacher's to read the night before he came to speak :banana:

[BuffySquirrel]

And while Tolstoy makes me wholeheartedly sympathise with a poor woman who suffers from the seven-year-itch and dumps her family for the first cool guy that happened to pass by -- and then kills herself in a bout of premenopausal depression -- still, that's what the character of Anna Karenina boils down to. A typical woman she is not, sorry.

Anna's not as bad as Madame Bovary, who makes me want to retch. Still, the problem pages suggest that 'the right man will make me happy' attitude is quite widespread among women, even long after you'd have thought they'd have learnt better. (no, that's not meant as an attack on men)

Growing up in the 1970s (in the UK), I quickly learnt that the women in films and books were not worth identifying with. It wasn't so much the "Lancelot's a churl, beaten by a girl" in Edward Eager's Half Magic that rankled, for example, as the girl's quick acceptance that, yes, she had wilfully humiliated Lancelot and ought to feel very bad about it.

Not until I saw Alien did I find a female character with whom I could identify, and I had never enjoyed a film so much in my life. Ripley, of course, was originally written as a man.

I had always been impatient with the concerns of my peer group--pop music, clothes, make up, boys--and I hardly feel less so now, although I suppose I should add cooking, dieting, kids. Yet many male concerns are hardly less incomprehensible--cars, football, leering. So am I qualified to write about either sex? Probably not! However, that prejudice imbibed as a child is still very strong, and my protags tend to be male.

[Fresie]

I agree. I can't stand Madame Bovary. One of the most soppy and pretentious stories that ever made it to the top. Sigourney Weaver is so much closer to a real woman's character (in her other film parts, too).

But what I think it is -- probably, many men writers portray women the way they imagine them to be. They do it unconsciously, of course. They see somebody in their kitchen and bedroom every day -- nice, probably a caring mom, probably a little petty, preoccupied with those tiny everyday problems... they don't have a chance to see the Ripley inside.:box:

[Zee]

With the understanding that it is indeed a generalization, and every rule sooner or later is broken, and that excellence in anything is the exception to the rule...

I (generally) agree that women write best as women, men as men. Try as we might to shout equality, we are not. That is, we should be given the same equal rights and opportunities in society, the same ability to make our personal choices, but that is far from saying that we are cloned one from the other. No one is equal, not in opposing or in the same gender, with another. We are each individual (hurrah!) and each with our idiosyncracies, talents, skills, whims, shadow and light.

I heard a recent report that, once again, scientists have found that the male and female brains, our ways of processing thought and emotion, are indeed different. The end result may or may not be the same, but the processing of information differs between the genders. We learn differently, we make our decisions differently, and we deal with our emotions differently.

So doesn't it make sense to generally accept that women will most accurately portray women in literature? and men portray men?

Not long ago I read a short story collection by a male author whose work I truly admire and respect. He is an artist with words. His stories sing. However, in one of these stories, he wrote from the POV of a pregnant woman. While we could argue that every individual woman experiences pregnancy differently... some of his portrayal was just so.... male. It read as outside of the woman's skin, not inside. Not blatantly. But in the most subtle of nuances, I felt he failed. (Yes, the author was married and had children.)

As writers, we are often taught to write what we know. That doesn't mean we can't write pure fantasy. Or science fiction. Or sheer absurdity. And be good at it. Yet even when we write from imagination, some basic elements remain the same--that is how we are able to connect to our readers. Even science fiction must suspend our disbelief with at least one toe still on the earth. It must be plausible.

I do know there are fine authors who do succeed. As I said, rules get broken, and they certainly should always, always be tested for validity. But, in general, even though I might explain myself until blue in the face to my male friends and colleagues.... if I want to be understood at the most core level, from the gut, from inside my skin.... that takes another woman.

Zee

[Ella]

Can a man accurately display the proper passion and ire of a woman, say, with PMS after breaking a nail and getting dumped by an imbecile she was planning on leaving that afternoon all the while searching and clawing for that mythical red leather Coach bag to charge on his credit card during the short span of her lunch break from a distressing corporate gig she'll never leave?

I'm not sure.

Could I, as a male writer, really get into running around stores for the perfect purse, down to the last pad and virtually homicidal from the only time the other sex got one over on my more sane than I make appear female character?

It's all so irrelevant and meaningless. I'm going to the bar.

I really hope this was a double layer of sarcasm. If this is what the average male thinks the average female is doing, it's no wonder we have gender gaps. The only thing I can identify with in the above rant is PMS.

[Susan Gable]

:Soapbox: Well I have always suspected so many of the writers of romantic novels you know the ones at Walmart are written by men. Especially those graphic sexaul scenes on every other page. .

Ummmm...why? Because women allegedly don't enjoy/think about sex as much as men supposedly do? (please note the inclusion of the words allegedly and supposedly in that sentence.)

I know a lot of romance writers in person, and most of them are women - even the ones writing the "hot" romances.

Susan G.

[zeprosnepsid]

I think it's the definition of "woman" that's a problem here. Some say they didn't like this book or that because the female character sounds like a man. Well, some females sound like men.

I actually can't read books with 'strong female characters'. I feel no sympathy, empathy or connection to women in Wally Lamb's Books or Toni Morrison's books. I never once looked at She's Come Undone and thought -- that's how it is.

There are as many different types of women as there are books. Just because a woman in a book doesn't resonate with some women, it doesn't mean she's not an adequate look at a female character. She just may not be 'typical'.

Are women better at writing 'typical' women then men? Maybe. But I don't care, I don't want to read that anyway.

[Darkhaven80]

I think that's a rather broad statement that stereotypes, which is something I try to avoid doing. (Although we all do it to some point sometime :Wha: ) I wouldnt say that a male cant write a female character as well as another and vice versa, because that's doubting the abilities of writers in general.

[BlueTexas]

Whatever else Tolstoy did, he created female characters who really lived, and who were dead on true to life.

I'm dying to disagree. :Ssh: Realistic, yes. You can portray an alcoholic selling her child into slavery and still do it with compassion and realism. And while Tolstoy makes me wholeheartedly sympathise with a poor woman who suffers from the seven-year-itch and dumps her family for the first cool guy that happened to pass by -- and then kills herself in a bout of premenopausal depression -- still, that's what the character of Anna Karenina boils down to. A typical woman she is not, sorry.


Oh, I dunno about that. A woman who was a close friend of mine in high school hits some of those marks really well. She's not at the pre-menpausal depression yet, but only because she lacks the age to be there. I fully expect to attend her funeral way before she's got much gray hair, and I'd help her family keep her kids from her at almost any cost.

If I know someone like that, I'm betting other people do, too.

[aruna]

Can a man accurately display the proper passion and ire of a woman, say, with PMS after breaking a nail and getting dumped by an imbecile she was planning on leaving that afternoon all the while searching and clawing for that mythical red leather Coach bag to charge on his credit card during the short span of her lunch break from a distressing corporate gig she'll never leave?



As a woman, I find the concept that "only a woman writer" can understand or portray women ridiculous, and your above post illustrates this perfectly. Yes, I know it's tongue in cheek but nevertheless I often encounter these cliches and the assumption that "we all have the same cares and problems" just isn't true.

I've never suffered from PMS and don't give one damn about broken nails or red leatrher Coach bags (what is that anyway?) or Gucci shoes or whatever; in fact, I find I think more like a man in several ways (eg: absolute indifference to looks, fashion, etc.) Yes, I do write primarily from the female viewpoint, but I often have male characters and do my best to put myself in their skin. I believe it works; we're only different on the surface. It's stereotypical writing that is our downfall.

[aruna]

The PMS thing is definetly something that a woman knows but then the man knows how to do a karate hold for a fight scene so it goes both ways.

See? More cliches. Not all women have PMS; I would write about it, if I had to, with the same use of imagination as a man. And not all men know about karate. My husband doesn't for one.

The best charatcer I ever created was an Indian woman, the second was an Indian man. But I am not Indian; I am black. Why ever not? It's my job!

[aruna]

What about Memoirs of a Geisha? It amazed me that it was written by a man. It's a very 'woman centric' book. (It's a wonderful read as well).

I agree. And for a woman who writes wonderful men, I'd name Susan Howatch.

[Celeste]

The PMS thing is definetly something that a woman knows but then the man knows how to do a karate hold for a fight scene so it goes both ways.


My mother and I tend to firmly believe that men also go through their own monthly PMS cycles. Lmao!!! :ROFL:

[maestrowork]

My mother and I tend to firmly believe that men also go through their own monthly PMS cycles. Lmao!!! :ROFL:

Amen. Although not as "crazy." Frex, one of my exes's PMS and my "cycle" were so out of sync I'm now wondering how we stayed together for so many months.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this thread back from the dead. I think there are a lot of stereotypes involved when writing about men or women. I think that's when a writer (male or female) fail when they go by the stereotypes. I used to do that, too, until an editor set me straight: "Your women tend to giggle or smile or blush a lot, and you men are too macho." That was quite an awakening for me, especially as someone who writes about relationship.

Not to say women don't blush or giggle. Many do. But many don't either. The point is, stereotypes are seldom interesting.

Many men write wonderful women (such as Memoir of a Geisha). And many women write wonderful men. I think it all boils down to the maturity, observation and skills of the writer.

[CaoPaux]

In point of fact, men do experience monthly hormonal fluctuations. So there! :tongue

[Jamesaritchie]

Whatever else Tolstoy did, he created female characters who really lived, and who were dead on true to life.

I'm dying to disagree. :Ssh: Realistic, yes. You can portray an alcoholic selling her child into slavery and still do it with compassion and realism. And while Tolstoy makes me wholeheartedly sympathise with a poor woman who suffers from the seven-year-itch and dumps her family for the first cool guy that happened to pass by -- and then kills herself in a bout of premenopausal depression -- still, that's what the character of Anna Karenina boils down to. A typical woman she is not, sorry.

And the clue to it lies in Tolstoy's personal life -- in all his female characters, we can notice traces of his much-hated wife...:cry:

Apparently, we know very different women. What is a typical woman? First, the character of Anna Kerenina boils down to far more that what you say. She's far mor ecomplicated, far more realistic. And you do her, and a lot of women like her, serious disservice by your characterization of her. But, sorry, you must not look up many statistics. Pre-menopausal women suffering from depression are extremely common. So are women who kill themselves, or attempt to kill themselves.

I'm not sure what "typical" women are like in your world, but if there aren't quite a few like Anna Karenina, you need to get out more.

[aruna]

Pre-menopausal women suffering from depression are extremely common. So are women who kill themselves, or attempt to kill themselves.

I'm not sure what "typical" women are like in your world, but if there aren't quite a few like Anna Karenina, you need to get out more.

I read Anna Karenina so many decades ago I can't remember much about her character; but I do find this comment extremely strange. I don't know a single person "like Anna Karenina"; at the very most, I have read about them. Most women I know are pretty well-adjusted; they have problems, but deal with them fairly realistically

Depressive women, pre-menopausal or otherwise, women who kill themselves or attempt to do so are certainly a rarity in my world. "Getting out more" isn't the issue; I see absolutely no reason why depression and suicidal tensencies should be considered normal or usual or typical female behaviour; I do see them as symptoms of a dysfunctional or generally unhappy society, and I'm probably lucky not to live in such a world. I guess it's who you know and where you live; I don't think my life would be richer or better in any way by knowing more such people - male or female.

[Niggle]

But Anna Karenina doesn't have to be "typical", surely? She just has to be convincing. If the author makes you believe that such a woman could exist, typical or atypical, then she or he has succeeded in writing a believable female character.

[aruna]

But Anna Karenina doesn't have to be "typical", surely? She just has to be convincing. If the author makes you believe that such a woman could exist, typical or atypical, then she or he has succeeded in writing a believable female character.

I don't object to the portrayal of Anna as depressive or whatever; I do believe that characters should be convincing, no matter what their problems. I remember enjoying AK at the time of reading. What I objected to was james's comment that depreesive or suicidal women are very common. This is just not my experience.

[loquax]

If every character ever written was 'typical' then nothing would ever happen. At least, nothing interesting. I don't want to read about typical women, nor typical men. I want to read about the heroes, the heroines, the cowards, the psychopaths, the b1tches and the bad guys.
I don't get annoyed if I read a book filled with flawed male characters. I don't think "Hey - I'm not like that! This book is rubbish!". It's not as if I want to read a book about myself. I know myself perfectly well - I want to read about other people.

[maestrowork]

Writing "typical" or "stereotypical" characters is a mistake many writers make. A character is "realistic" if it feels like she is really breathing, feeling, living person. You may not understand why she does certain things or feels a certain way or make certain decisions -- you may not "connect" with the character, and that's fine -- but you can't say the character is not real because you happen to not agree with her or that "you have never met anyone like her." I mean, I've never met a psychotic serial killer, either, but it won't stop me from believing that a character could be such person.

Not everyone is Jeffrey Dahmer, or the Runnaway Bride, or Anna Karenina. It doesn't mean we can't be fascinated or empathetic with them...

[aruna]

Writing "typical" or "stereotypical" characters is a mistake many writers make. A character is "realistic" if it feels like she is really breathing, feeling, living person. You may not understand why she does certain things or feels a certain way or make certain decisions -- you may not "connect" with the character, and that's fine -- but you can't say the character is not real because you happen to not agree with her or that "you have never met anyone like her." I mean, I've never met a psychotic serial killer, either, but it won't stop me from believing that a character could be such person.

Not everyone is Jeffrey Dahmer, or the Runnaway Bride, or Anna Karenina. It doesn't mean we can't be fascinated or empathetic with them...

I agree totally. When I said "I have never met anyone like her" - this was ONLY in reply to James's (off-topic?) comment that such women are very common in real life; and that we should go out and meet them. I definitely do not agree with this. It doesn't mean characters should all be typical. On the contary.

Every character I've written is absolutely non-typical. I don't write about everyday people. I don't write about the type of person anyone has ever met. I try to make them all unsual in some way. I don't necessarily know such people. I make them up.

[azbikergirl]

When writing stories, I attempt to capture the essence of humanity by showing how people behave under stressful situations. Maybe it's the fact that I'm not a girly girl, that I don't approach my life with nails, hair and shoes at the forefront of my consciousness, but I see stories as being about people, not about men vs. women. When we get right down to it, are men and women so different? Individuals are, yes, but as a whole? Guess it boils down to whether the author (and reader) believes in the whole Mars vs. Venus thang.

Make up a character with this personality and that sense of humor, these dreams and those fears. Put that person between a rock and a hard place and see what happens. Does he/she behave differently because of gender? Doubtful. Probably his/her behavior is based on the qualities we give him/her.

[pixiejuice]

If every character ever written was 'typical' then nothing would ever happen. At least, nothing interesting. I don't want to read about typical women, nor typical men. I want to read about the heroes, the heroines, the cowards, the psychopaths, the b1tches and the bad guys.
I don't get annoyed if I read a book filled with flawed male characters. I don't think "Hey - I'm not like that! This book is rubbish!". It's not as if I want to read a book about myself. I know myself perfectly well - I want to read about other people.


All heroes are typical people, they've just had the courage to do something heroic. And psychopaths are typical too, until they were so disturbed in some way to make them psycho. If you aim to write a hero then he'll end up two-dimensional. If you write a typical guy who somehow finds the strength to do something heroic, then you've written a three-dimensional living and breathing character.

And not all flawed characters, male or female, are going to be alike. There are endless combinations of ways the human character can be flawed. What are the chances that any one of them is going to be just like you.

I am less inclined to read stories about "heroes" and "bad guys". Heroes are not always brave, and bad guys are not always evil. If you write them that way they wont be believable because real people are not that predictable.

I think plenty of interesting things can happen to "typical" people. But then, what are "typical" people anyway?

[Niggle]

Thanks for the clarification, aruna. I wasn't actually replying specifically to your post but more to the trend of the thread as a whole.

[loquax]

All heroes are typical people, they've just...
And psychopaths are typical too, until...

The moment you tack on an abnormal characteristic to someone, they are no longer 'typical'. They are 'atypical'. The average person is not a psychopath. Nor a hero.

If you aim to write a hero then he'll end up two-dimensional. If you write a typical guy who somehow finds the strength to do something heroic, then you've written a three-dimensional living and breathing character.

If you write a typical guy who somehow finds the strength to do something heroic, you are no longer writing about a typical guy. You are writing about a hero.

[mesh138]

A writer's best talent is empathy. Whites can write about black characters. Women about men, and vice versa. Of course women are going to write more authentic "women" stories, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "better." The only woman author I've ever been able to enjoy is Amy Tan.

[Kiva Wolfe]

I think women :welcome: write better books about women, because we are really in the shoes of a women. men all they do is write about how they think being a women is. they don't know really how it is.

Controversial opinion, but one that won't buy you a free beer at your local bar. The idea that women only have insight into women debases male writers, as it would equally to say a woman can't write believably in a male POV. Come on, I think if we have any talent as writers, we can easily tackle those age, gender and lifestyle challenges we find in the process of creating. Good writers adapt and stretch their imaginations to walk in another's shoes and explore other worlds, otherwise a 70 year-old writer couldn't write YA, gay couldn't write straight, or visa versa, and you'd have to be an alien to write sci-fi.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Guess it boils down to whether the author (and reader) believes in the whole Mars vs. Venus thang.I knew someone in college who believed in the Gospel Of St. John Gray. He was significantly older than 18-year-old me, and had just jumped into the position of being the first adult to tell me he wanted to go to bed with me. I did that hemming hawing thing one does when one is flustered, telling him, "I need to think about that." He said--and this is near verbatim--"Well, I can give you time, sure, but understand that I'll be a mite impatient since I know what you're going to say. See, I've read Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, and I'm pretty sure I've got a good idea what you're thinking right now."

He was very surprised to hear that what I was actually thinking was, "I'm totally not attracted to this guy that way, but is that enough to account for my sudden impulse to barf at the thought of sex with him?"

His little speech about that book, though, made me reevaluate how far I could trust him. The thought of him being so very certain that I meant Yes when I said No... well, I didn't much want to be alone with him after that. I made sure our planned study session at my dorm room coincided with reliable friends being home and within shouting distance, my door open--and well before the cast on his leg came off. He asked me to give him a call when I got back on campus next quarter, and, well, I didn't. He would have been off his crutches by then, and I didn't want to give him a chance to try out his new physical advantage over me.

I'm not sure if this story has an on-topic moral. Perhaps just a cautionary tale about the perils of gender-specific generalizations, whether of the sort that he made--"Women are perfectly transparent once you read the instruction manual"--or of the sort with which Writersliving began this thread. (I note she has not returned to defend or withdraw her statement).

The incident certainly ensured I'd never want to read Dr. John Gray.

[Tiger]

I would add Marys Renault and Stewart to the list of women who write good male characters--but I never thought to be amazed or impressed by the cross-gender aspect of the writing.

I mean, at least male counterparts exist as living references for them--unlike the folk about whom they write who died millenia ago.

[loquax]

"I've read Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, and I'm pretty sure I've got a good idea what you're thinking right now."

Sounds like a pick-up line if you ask me. He wanted you to know that he has tried to understand the female psyche through reading a book primarily written for women. Unfortunately his underlying idiocy, and perhaps nervousness, messed it up.

Give him a chance!

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

"I've read Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, and I'm pretty sure I've got a good idea what you're thinking right now."

Sounds like a pick-up line if you ask me. He wanted you to know that he has tried to understand the female psyche through reading a book primarily written for women. Unfortunately his underlying idiocy, and perhaps nervousness, messed it up.

Give him a chance!Sorry, but my gut said "he's creepy." I trust my gut when it tells me things like that. Besides, this was 1994. It's a little late now--I'm all grown up and married now! ;)

[reph]

Sorry, but my gut said "he's creepy."
My gut says he was creepy, and I never met the guy. He sounds like an arrogant jerk.

[loquax]

That book sits in my parents' bookshelf collecting dust. I'll take your word and continue to never read it.

[Carole]

This is just my 2 cents worth, but from experience I know that certain men are absolutely capable of writing from the point of view of a woman. My husband is a perfect example. There are days when he understands me better than I understand myself. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

By and large, the worst possible mistake any reader can make is connecting a writer and a novel he's written. Lousy people write great books all the time, and saintly people write books that would insult a sailor.

Fools read books all the time, and suddenly think they know all about a subject, be that subject women, men, or three-legged cats.

Not only can't you judge a book by the cover, you also can judge a book, at least a novel, by the person who write.

And if anything, men write far more realistic women characters than women write, and women write far more realistic characters than men write. Many of us are far too close and far too absorbed by our own gender to write about it in an objective manner.

And, of course, some writers can't write men or woemn well, no matter who they are.

But I will say this. As often as not, when women complain loudest that some man doesn't write women well, it's because they man wrote women extremely well. The reverse is also true. Quite often, when men say a woman does not write men well, it's because that women nailed the way men really are, rather than the way men see themselves.

If the opposite gender characters you write don't draw some serious insults from the opposite gender, there's a good chance you didn't write them realistic enough.

[Femotica]

Isn't it all about observation? To truly know a woman, to understand her is to watch her, listen to her, learn everything about her. And after all that research, any man ought to be able to write a woman well. The problem I think is throwing out all previous knowledge, expectations, and observations and looking at things with new eyes. That's hard to do for a man or a woman. Heck, women should do it from time to time to get a better understanding of her female characters. Otherwise they all begin to sound the same, I think. JMO.

[BlueTexas]

What I objected to was james's comment that depreesive or suicidal women are very common.

Maybe not very common, but common. There are ten women in my family. Six of them are on anti-depressants. Three that I know of have considered suicide. Of the four who are not medicated, one is 18 and just out of high school, one is a 21 year old about to be divorced (and I firmly believe there is prozac in the future of those two--sisters, daughters of one of the medicated) and then there's my psychologist cousin, and me. Four of the women in my family are happily married--two medicated, two not.

The two of us who are well-adjusted also happen to be the best educated of the bunch, and that may be what makes the difference.

Of my friends and coworkers, I can think of five women off the top of my head who are on medication for depression.

It can be very common. Bad mothers abound, too. Just watch how they act with their children in Wal-Mart, or all the women like Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, or that woman who cut her infant's arm off, who don't make the national news.

Anna Karenina is very believeable in my world.