Women authors and pseudonyms

[PennLady]

So found this and thought I'd pass it along.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...donyms_has_j_k_rowling_taught_us_nothing.html

 

[3113]

I think the writer has a misconception--stating that male writers are considered "masters" of it all while women aren't isn't the issue. I suspect that both male and female readers *do* know that women can write with authority on any realistic subject as well as men. But fantasy isn't always realistic, and if it is, men want certain realities but not others. As with George R.R. Martin, fantasy where there is a realistic focus on fighting with swords on a medieval battlefield, rather than a focus on, say, the reality of childbirth in a medieval castle.

We will grant that it may still be a misconception that a woman fantasy writer would ignore the battlefield in favor of childbirth (and vice versa); women *can* write up fantasies that cater to men, but books like "50 Shades" and "Twilight" re-inforce the idea that female fantasy writers tend to write what caters to women and avoid what caters to men. Hence, I don't think that it's the editors and publishers who are maintaining this stereotype and forcing the issue. I think male readers still hold to this prejudice with some justification--less about what women can write vs. what they want to write.

And I think women hold to it as well, by the way. The writer fails to mention the men who write romances under female pseudonyms because women readers won't pick up romances written by a man. This in spite of the fact that male writers like Joss Wheton and Chris Claremont have written up some of the best known and loved romantic fantasy tales--complete with three-some dramas certainly the equal of something like "Twilight" or "True Blood."

Thus, it's less a matter, I think, of what male/female writers "can" write rather than what they *will* write.

 

[njlauren]

There is some truth the argument about the way women and men write, but I think a lot of it is simply the old "men won't read an epic tale written by a woman' and so forth. My biggest beef with women writers is the way they often write male characters, I have read more then a few of the so called 'adult fantasy books' (many of which are pretty well written, this aint' harlequin schlock of years past) and the men in them don't make sense. There is this one series, set in this northern california town, where there are all these ex cop/ex military macho types, who supposedly have testosterone enough to impregnate a stump, yet when bad guys come calling, these guys, when they catch them, tie them up and give them to the police.....if you have ever been around that type of guy, I guarantee you they aren't going to do that....(on the other hand Kirsten Ashley gets it right most of the time, her tough guys are tough). that is what a woman would do, not a guy pissed off because people he loves have been threatened by some scum.

On the other hand if a writer does a bit of research, they should be able to write a decent tale that appeals to men and women, you don't have to write a bodice ripper to appeal to women and you don't have to write "conan the barbarian' to appeal to men, there is middle ground, people like Ursula le ruin did it back in the day, and people like Leigh Bracket wrote great sci fi when it was a male-only genre (as an fyi, I believe she worked on the screenplays for some of the original star wars pics, probably why they worked *lol*).

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have read more then a few of the so called 'adult fantasy books' (many of which are pretty well written, this aint' harlequin schlock of years past) and the men in them don't make sense

They aren't intended to make sense. They are intended to be entertaining to a specific demographic.

like Ursula le Guin did it back in the day

Ursula Le Guin... Well, sort of. Truth is, Le Guin appealed to men by invoking all the the male myths-- unquestioningly-- and to the women by adding a little bit more characterization. She admits it herself. And her books, beside the first two Earthsea" books, Lathe of Heaven" and "Left Hand of darkness" -- simply were not hugely successful successful.

To me, her best book-- her masterpiece-- is one called "Always coming home" and it's nearly unknown.

 

[SevenSquared]

I don't think it's exactly shocking that men are generally better at writing male characters and women are generally better at writing female characters. For all the lengths we go to about men and women being 'equal', equal does not mean the same. Men think in ways that don't make sense to women and vica-versa. And the preconceptions that both sexes have about the way the other sex thinks and acts in certain situations can be woefully inaccurate.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In the days of George Sand and the Bronte sisters, there was a bias against female writers, which is why those women used male pen names. There may still be some, but not as much.

However, when it comes to writing porn, I believe women are given a big edge. I don't mean they are better; this is an individual thing, but people are more eager to read porn writen by women. I also believe this is especially so when it comes to lesbian stories.

There just sems to be something extra salacious about a woman writing about fucking, etc.

 

[NaokoSmith]

We will grant that it may still be a misconception that a woman fantasy writer would ignore the battlefield in favor of childbirth (and vice versa); women *can* write up fantasies that cater to men
it's less a matter, I think, of what male/female writers "can" write rather than what they *will* write.

I go with that. I write battles sometimes but I'm not nearly as interested in them as I am in domestic stuff.

Characters in a story often aren't representations of how men and women act and interact in the 'real' world. Especially in fantasy. Both the male and the female characters are parts of us when we are reading the story and so unsurprisingly the men in stories aimed at women are often less masculine and the women in stories aimed at men can become less prominent characters, designed to set off a more rounded male character.

 

[3113]

Great Lengths to be equal is not the same as "equal" in biology

IFor all the lengths we go to about men and women being 'equal', equal does not mean the same.

I'm sorry, but this statement is stupid. It's stupid because the "lengths" we've gone to for equality are not related to biology. And really, it's a shame we've been forced to go to any lengths to make sure women were given equal pay for equal work, or allowed to vote, or be given jobs or get into schools for which they were as qualified as men. We didn't go to these lengths to say that men and women were biologically the same. We went to these lengths to make sure that certain human beings were treated as human beings, not as second class citizens.

As for biology, well, we could get into a long discussion of biological differences in individuals that totally undermine your gross generalization of the two sexes (i.e. all men are the same and all women are the same)--but, yes, generally speaking men don't have a womb and can't give birth. Not biologically the same as women. Duh. But the whole point of being a writer is to be able to write about something you can learn about even if you can't experience it. Or are you saying that a writer can't write about a transexual unless he/she is a transexual? Can't have their protagonist getting a liver transplant unless they get one? Can't write about what it was like to fight in the trenches of WWI unless they fought in the trenches of WWI?

And that is where men and women ARE equal if they are writers. Because any writer worth their salt can get into the head of, well, maybe not anyone, but into the head of some other human being, including the opposite gender--convincingly, as many a woman writer thought by readers to be a man because of her convincing male characters, and many a male writer thought to be a woman because of his convincing female characters more than adequately proves. Whether said woman or man WANTS to get into the head of the opposite gender and really think about what the extra testosterone/estrogen feels like, however...that's a whole other discussion.

 

[NekoParks]

There is some truth the argument about the way women and men write, but I think a lot of it is simply the old "men won't read an epic tale written by a woman' and so forth. My biggest beef with women writers is the way they often write male characters, I have read more then a few of the so called 'adult fantasy books' (many of which are pretty well written, this aint' harlequin schlock of years past) and the men in them don't make sense. There is this one series, set in this northern california town, where there are all these ex cop/ex military macho types, who supposedly have testosterone enough to impregnate a stump, yet when bad guys come calling, these guys, when they catch them, tie them up and give them to the police.....if you have ever been around that type of guy, I guarantee you they aren't going to do that....(on the other hand Kirsten Ashley gets it right most of the time, her tough guys are tough). that is what a woman would do, not a guy pissed off because people he loves have been threatened by some scum.

On the other hand if a writer does a bit of research, they should be able to write a decent tale that appeals to men and women, you don't have to write a bodice ripper to appeal to women and you don't have to write "conan the barbarian' to appeal to men, there is middle ground, people like Ursula le ruin did it back in the day, and people like Leigh Bracket wrote great sci fi when it was a male-only genre (as an fyi, I believe she worked on the screenplays for some of the original star wars pics, probably why they worked *lol*).

Leigh Bracket worked on The Empire Strikes Back and helped with Return of the Jedi. Lawrence Kasdan mentions that she helped him with Jedi.

 

[SevenSquared]

I'm sorry, but this statement is stupid. It's stupid because the "lengths" we've gone to for equality are not related to biology. And really, it's a shame we've been forced to go to any lengths to make sure women were given equal pay for equal work, or allowed to vote, or be given jobs or get into schools for which they were as qualified as men. We didn't go to these lengths to say that men and women were biologically the same. We went to these lengths to make sure that certain human beings were treated as human beings, not as second class citizens.

As for biology, well, we could get into a long discussion of biological differences in individuals that totally undermine your gross generalization of the two sexes (i.e. all men are the same and all women are the same)--but, yes, generally speaking men don't have a womb and can't give birth. Not biologically the same as women. Duh. But the whole point of being a writer is to be able to write about something you can learn about even if you can't experience it. Or are you saying that a writer can't write about a transexual unless he/she is a transexual? Can't have their protagonist getting a liver transplant unless they get one? Can't write about what it was like to fight in the trenches of WWI unless they fought in the trenches of WWI?

And that is where men and women ARE equal if they are writers. Because any writer worth their salt can get into the head of, well, maybe not anyone, but into the head of some other human being, including the opposite gender--convincingly, as many a woman writer thought by readers to be a man because of her convincing male characters, and many a male writer thought to be a woman because of his convincing female characters more than adequately proves. Whether said woman or man WANTS to get into the head of the opposite gender and really think about what the extra testosterone/estrogen feels like, however...that's a whole other discussion.

Wow, what a needlessly long rant. I didn't say any of the things you suggested that I said. You're trying to generate an argument where none exists. Are you bored?