Men writing women; women writing men
Jun. 7th, 2007 05:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ladyofastolatI wrote this some weeks ago, but wasn't going to post it, since I didn't want to get accused of sexism. However, an email from my Dad has made me reconsider.
First, the email from my Dad:
"I'm hoping you would be willing to give me your honest opinions about something which has come up in Book Group, where I am the only man. The initial question was whether a male writer could create a convincing female character, but I'm more interested in what was said afterwards.
"Basically all the women contend that men and women are radically different, some of them even suggesting they are almost separate species. When one woman said no man can ever understand a woman, all the rest vociferously agreed. They distinguished it from the sense in which no one person can ever have total understanding of another. What do you think?"
Then the piece I'd coincidentally already written:
I've quite often seen it asserted that a certain male writer "cannot write women." I have even seen it asserted that "men can't write women."
Claims like this have always made me uneasy. To me, it implies that women are defined first and foremost by their sex. I, as a woman, must have more in common with any woman than with any man. I find this objectionable, and consider it mistaken. I have no interest at all in nearly everything that the media has branded as "female". I relate to people because of their interests and personality; sex is irrelevant (as far as I'm aware). I have read statements like, "He [male author] wrote a woman doing X. No woman would do X," and thought, "I would! I know lots of women who would."
However, there has been quite a lot of research recently into whether there is a "male brain" and a "female brain." Those who claim that there is a difference claim that the typical woman is better at empathy and words than the typical man – but that there is a huge overlap, meaning that any one woman chosen at random is quite likely to be worse at these things that a random man. However, a difference doesn't have to be innate to be real, so we can dispute these findings, and still believe that there are behavioural differences between "typical" men and "typical" women. Modes of thinking and behaviour can be taught by society from birth, and become indistinguishable from one we're born with. In stories set in the here and now, it doesn't make much difference – though stories set in fantasy worlds clearly have their own challenge.
I can certainly accept that some male writers "can't write women", merely because they don't try. Or, possibly, because they do consciously try to write "a woman", rather than writing a person. The male protagonists are people; the woman is "the girl", "the sex symbol", "the thing that screams and needs saving." However, that is just bad writing full stop. Fictional characters should not be stereotypes, or cardboard cut-outs that just fill one role. I bet that many of those novels that characterise "the woman" purely as "the woman," also include cardboard cut-out villains, or portrayals of people of other nationalities.
Just because some male authors make no attempt to write rounded, realistic female characters doesn't mean that no man can. Even if we believe that there are real innate differences between the male and female brain, isn't one of the main points of fiction exploring people who are not like you? If every novel was autobiographical, and every character was exactly the same as the author, books would be very boring. A law-abiding author can get into the head of a murdering sociopath. A wimp can write a hero. If an author can write a convincing murderer, why shouldn't a man be able to write a convincing woman?
My opinion has always been that authors shouldn't try too hard. If a male author is forever thinking, "I'm writing a woman! I must make sure I get it right!" it is likely to lead him into stereotypes. Write a rounded character first and foremost. A good writer is forever observing the world around him. He will have absorbed instinctively, from observation, from living, all the subtle modes of behaviour that make up an individual. If he approaches this female character as human, first and foremost, she is likely to also end up reading like a convincing and real woman. Write her principally as "a woman", and things go wrong.
However, last week I read an interview with a male author, who writes books about male characters, with a strong focus on relationships. He talked a bit about the way men typically deal with relationships, and talk about emotions. Or, rather, don't talk. It's all about silence, awkwardness, and understatement, he says.
This struck me. The thing is, recently I have read quite a few fantasy novels written by female authors, and I also read quite a bit of fanfic, most of which is written by women. The fantasy novels in question almost invariable star male characters, since this is my preference. Fanfic also seems more likely to feature male characters than female characters. A lot of my reading matter for the last few years has featured male characters written by women.
This author's description of how "typical" men do emotional things didn't match much that I have recently read. The fantasy novel written by a woman seems (in general – with lots of exceptions!) to be more centred in character than the novels written by men, with characters having self-aware internal monologues and long chats about feelings. In fact, that's one of the reasons I like them. I like a traditionally male genre (fighting! Swords! Smiting evil!) seen through a woman's eyes ("All that – and now with angst, too!")
And as for fanfic, one of the main motives behind writing fanfic is to delve deeper into the emotions of the characters. A lot of fanfic seeks to fill in the gaps of an episode in canon, by adding extra emotions, or to add an emotional aftermath to an episode, in which the characters pour their hearts out about what just happened. Yes, there are bad fanfics in which strong and capable male characters behave just like emotional 14 year old girls, but even a lot of the good stuff often has the characters being more emotional than they are in the source material – source material that is often written by men. Are all these female authors – me included! - failing to write convincing men?
People who claim that there is a male brain and a female brain claim that the typical woman is better at empathy and words than the typical man. (Again, I stress that there is a huge overlap.) What are novels about but empathy and words? Could it be the case that male novelists are already slightly leaning towards the "female" end of the continuum? Do male writers actually have a headstart when it comes to writing "typical" female characters? But where does that leave female writers? Because we write, we deal with words and emotions. That leaves us a long way away from the "typical" man – whether you consider that the typical image of a man derives from something innate, or from the macho lessons of society.
Or should I not even be asking this question? Is it, as I have often assumed in the past, a sexist question, focusing on the things that divide us as people, not the things that bring us together?
First, the email from my Dad:
"I'm hoping you would be willing to give me your honest opinions about something which has come up in Book Group, where I am the only man. The initial question was whether a male writer could create a convincing female character, but I'm more interested in what was said afterwards.
"Basically all the women contend that men and women are radically different, some of them even suggesting they are almost separate species. When one woman said no man can ever understand a woman, all the rest vociferously agreed. They distinguished it from the sense in which no one person can ever have total understanding of another. What do you think?"
Then the piece I'd coincidentally already written:
I've quite often seen it asserted that a certain male writer "cannot write women." I have even seen it asserted that "men can't write women."
Claims like this have always made me uneasy. To me, it implies that women are defined first and foremost by their sex. I, as a woman, must have more in common with any woman than with any man. I find this objectionable, and consider it mistaken. I have no interest at all in nearly everything that the media has branded as "female". I relate to people because of their interests and personality; sex is irrelevant (as far as I'm aware). I have read statements like, "He [male author] wrote a woman doing X. No woman would do X," and thought, "I would! I know lots of women who would."
However, there has been quite a lot of research recently into whether there is a "male brain" and a "female brain." Those who claim that there is a difference claim that the typical woman is better at empathy and words than the typical man – but that there is a huge overlap, meaning that any one woman chosen at random is quite likely to be worse at these things that a random man. However, a difference doesn't have to be innate to be real, so we can dispute these findings, and still believe that there are behavioural differences between "typical" men and "typical" women. Modes of thinking and behaviour can be taught by society from birth, and become indistinguishable from one we're born with. In stories set in the here and now, it doesn't make much difference – though stories set in fantasy worlds clearly have their own challenge.
I can certainly accept that some male writers "can't write women", merely because they don't try. Or, possibly, because they do consciously try to write "a woman", rather than writing a person. The male protagonists are people; the woman is "the girl", "the sex symbol", "the thing that screams and needs saving." However, that is just bad writing full stop. Fictional characters should not be stereotypes, or cardboard cut-outs that just fill one role. I bet that many of those novels that characterise "the woman" purely as "the woman," also include cardboard cut-out villains, or portrayals of people of other nationalities.
Just because some male authors make no attempt to write rounded, realistic female characters doesn't mean that no man can. Even if we believe that there are real innate differences between the male and female brain, isn't one of the main points of fiction exploring people who are not like you? If every novel was autobiographical, and every character was exactly the same as the author, books would be very boring. A law-abiding author can get into the head of a murdering sociopath. A wimp can write a hero. If an author can write a convincing murderer, why shouldn't a man be able to write a convincing woman?
My opinion has always been that authors shouldn't try too hard. If a male author is forever thinking, "I'm writing a woman! I must make sure I get it right!" it is likely to lead him into stereotypes. Write a rounded character first and foremost. A good writer is forever observing the world around him. He will have absorbed instinctively, from observation, from living, all the subtle modes of behaviour that make up an individual. If he approaches this female character as human, first and foremost, she is likely to also end up reading like a convincing and real woman. Write her principally as "a woman", and things go wrong.
However, last week I read an interview with a male author, who writes books about male characters, with a strong focus on relationships. He talked a bit about the way men typically deal with relationships, and talk about emotions. Or, rather, don't talk. It's all about silence, awkwardness, and understatement, he says.
This struck me. The thing is, recently I have read quite a few fantasy novels written by female authors, and I also read quite a bit of fanfic, most of which is written by women. The fantasy novels in question almost invariable star male characters, since this is my preference. Fanfic also seems more likely to feature male characters than female characters. A lot of my reading matter for the last few years has featured male characters written by women.
This author's description of how "typical" men do emotional things didn't match much that I have recently read. The fantasy novel written by a woman seems (in general – with lots of exceptions!) to be more centred in character than the novels written by men, with characters having self-aware internal monologues and long chats about feelings. In fact, that's one of the reasons I like them. I like a traditionally male genre (fighting! Swords! Smiting evil!) seen through a woman's eyes ("All that – and now with angst, too!")
And as for fanfic, one of the main motives behind writing fanfic is to delve deeper into the emotions of the characters. A lot of fanfic seeks to fill in the gaps of an episode in canon, by adding extra emotions, or to add an emotional aftermath to an episode, in which the characters pour their hearts out about what just happened. Yes, there are bad fanfics in which strong and capable male characters behave just like emotional 14 year old girls, but even a lot of the good stuff often has the characters being more emotional than they are in the source material – source material that is often written by men. Are all these female authors – me included! - failing to write convincing men?
People who claim that there is a male brain and a female brain claim that the typical woman is better at empathy and words than the typical man. (Again, I stress that there is a huge overlap.) What are novels about but empathy and words? Could it be the case that male novelists are already slightly leaning towards the "female" end of the continuum? Do male writers actually have a headstart when it comes to writing "typical" female characters? But where does that leave female writers? Because we write, we deal with words and emotions. That leaves us a long way away from the "typical" man – whether you consider that the typical image of a man derives from something innate, or from the macho lessons of society.
Or should I not even be asking this question? Is it, as I have often assumed in the past, a sexist question, focusing on the things that divide us as people, not the things that bring us together?
