Can Men and Women Write Sucessfully Outside their Own Gender

[peter]

Reading Mary Beard's comments regarding the writtings of Sappho I came across the following

More importantly....., was the plain fact that the writer, the speaking subject of these points, was a woman - a woman claiming the right to talk about her own sexuality.

This to me is an interesting observation - and one that it should be quite possible to confirm or reject on the basis of examples found everywhere in writing. The suggestion is [if I am getting it correctly] that at least on matters pertaining directly to the issues that concern a particular gender, it is only members of that gender who will write convincingly. Hence the declaration that there is no question, across the gulf of 3,500 [ish?] years, that the writter of 'Sappho's' works was a woman [even given that this was a totally male dominated society where a woman was not suffered to have an oppinion or to make contribution to debate exept at the most banal level [witness Telemachus' comment to his mother Penelope in the Oddesy "Talking must be the concern of men."].

Now I'm not questioning that Sappho was a woman here [or indeed the deplorable shortsightedness of a society that would prevent 50% of it's members from having 'a voice' on the mere whim of their gender], but more the suggestion that there is this possibility that certain peices of writting could be absolutely and specifically nailed down re the gender of their composers. Of course a man can write using a woman as a viewpoint charachter {SRD does it with Linden all the time} and vica-versa, but the suggestion is that there is a core area pertaining to each given sex, that will resist the deception of being convincingly expressed, by a member of the opposit gender. How else are we to see professor Beard's statement? I do not deny the difficulty of say a female writter 'encroaching' on areas that stem from deeply embedded parts of the male psyche and producing a convincing result [or vica-versa] - but I do doubt it's impossibility. What do you guys think?

[Orlion]

I believe it is incorrect. It would certainly help, but it is not necessary to write a convincing character.

Really, all one would need to do is talk with a member of the opposite sex about "what x or y" is like, and you have a bonafide example of an actual experience.

[Avatar]

It might not be necessary to write a convincing character, (although...how convincing do women think female characters written by men are? I can name several straight off that women readers have said are not), but I don't think it is possible for it to be 100% authentic.

--A

[peter]

Going back to the comment I made about SRD writing from Linden's point of view - given all the 'thinking time' that is allocated to her [especially in the Last Chrons], I would have thought there to be plenty of scope for SRD to 'get it right' or otherwise, just in the way she percieves and reacts to the situations she is faced with. I may be on dangerous ground here [and mean no offense] but could it be that the Chrons has a larger male than female following - and thus we tend not to see the 'fault lines' in Lindens thinking from a female perspective. I've not heard much comment on this from the female readership on this site - but I wonder how convincingly Linden's actual 'way of thinking' comes across to them? It's a terrible confession but I've never been a great fan of female written fantasy because it seems not quite to have the same perspective on events that 'gels' with me. I can't quote massive numbers of examples of this but it's definitely been the case. [My loss no doubt.]

[SleeplessOne]

It's an interesting theory; I think it's one that could be proven or disproved quite easily.

get a reasonable sample size of both men and women, ask them to read books from a few anonymous authors of both sexes, with those authors writing from both the perspective of their own gender and from that of their opposite gender.

see if the readers can pick it.

[Vraith]

Of course they can, even if not perfectly.
There have been dozens of famous/respected authors who used other-sex pseudos and no one even knew.
Many men can't write women...but they often can't write MEN, either. Or, if they can, only particular "types."
Women who can't write men, too...or women.
In some cases they are even great writers...people don't read them because of their convincing characters.

If we're going to go down this road/theory, we might as well just jump straight to the bottom: no one can write any character. Only themselves in costume. [and even that will be based on delusions].

And in doing so ruin most of the world...at least the art-fields...because it misses the point.

[peter]

And on the basis of this V. we can disscount Mary Beards comment that Sappho [from knowledge of her writtings alone] *had* to be a woman?

[Vraith]

And on the basis of this V. we can disscount Mary Beards comment that Sappho [from knowledge of her writtings alone] *had* to be a woman?

Perhaps...and only perhaps...Sappho *had* to be a woman. But she *had* to be thousands of other things, many of them unrelated to sex/gender, as well.
But I definitely think we can discount Beard's ability to KNOW any such thing from the writing, and ONLY the writing.

And let's look at another problem with following that road...if it is true, if *only* a woman could write it, then *only* another woman can read/understand it.
Shakespeare is MEN ONLY...no need for any of the ladies to read, perform, watch it.
And the Brontes Women's Rooms...no men may enter, and they'd just be hopelessly lost if they did.
And stay away from Whitman if you aren't homo [or perhaps bi-] sexual but [probably] virgin in actual physical experience of your preference. You'll never understand it, go back to the man-cave [or woman-cave]

I don't want to deny that sex/gender has an impact...the specific, precise details and context of the writer's experience are essential fundamentals of the writing. But it's ALL of them that matter...and I think it is unjustifiably restrictive/limiting to claim sex/gender is the definitive, absolute, most important one. The most important one is the ability to TRANSFORM the particulars [including but not limited to sex/gender connected ones] into something that others CAN understand.
Or what the hell is the point?

[wayfriend]

I've not heard much comment on this from the female readership on this site - but I wonder how convincingly Linden's actual 'way of thinking' comes across to them?

Stephanie: I love the way you convey life, spirit and courage in your female characters. I read a great deal, and in my opinion no other male author in the fantasy/SF field comes close to your ability to do so.

---

Fatma El Sakhawy In your selection of " Reave The Unjust And Others", I have realized that you appreciate wommen's characters. In most selections in this book, I have seen that the roles women have played were more positive and constructive. they are good decision makers, take difficult decisive steps are more consciencious.

---

Angela Davis What struck me in this book perhaps more than in the others, was your understanding of the particular combination of rage/pain/grief, the substantially unexpressed capacity for the extreme that I have always believed to be a particularly female response to being wronged or betrayed (but perhaps men do feel this way too?). I felt such sympathy for SWMNBN, this sentient extrapolation of all that pain, and you treated her so sensitively and empathetically. That she responded to TC's attempt to reach her with reason gives me reason to believe there may be hope for her, but I'm happy to wait and see!

Once again Linden leaves me speechless. She's staring down the barrel of ultimate despair again and again, yet she still manages to pull herself up to face the next onslaught, and she's so believable.

Hope this helps.

[peter]

One thing I may not have 'got across' well enough is that the question does not refer to all aspects of being a man or woman [I'm not sure I'm in agreement with Mary Beard's position at all, that it would be possible to KNOW the gender of a writter from the writings alone, but lets run with it] but just certain areas that might be so outside the other genders ability to 'empathise/visualise/experience', that effective and sustained writting on them may not be possible.

Let's look at it like this. Say I want to write a convincing piece on the conceptual experience of being 'schizophrenic'. I'm sat alongside another writter who balances me in writting skill - but *is* a schizophrenic. We write for an hour, I using my research and interview rescourced knowledge of how it feels to be scizophrenic, and my writting partner using his day to day driven knowledge about the facts of his existence. The two pieces are given to two readers, one 'normal' and one 'schizophrenic'. The normal one [let's say] is unable to distinguish between the 'fake' scizophrenic and the real one - but what of the real schizophrenic. I think it unlikely that, over an hour of writting of ones deep inner experience [or not] would not reveal itself, allbeit by some small chance remark, by some little and seemingly unimportant comment, that would allow the sufferer to say "Yes - This is how it is! This rings true. This writter understands how it is." Is this possible on a gender basis also?

[Vraith]

"Yes - This is how it is! This rings true. This writter understands how it is." Is this possible on a gender basis also?

Possibly...maybe even probably.
BUT: I think the number of things that are truly that strongly limited and incommunicable are exceptionally few. And decidedly, heavily, controversial/debatable. I can't tell you how many times I've heard...and sometimes in relation to real life, real people not just fictional characters...say the opposite of what you note.
"If THAT's what they think X is like, they've never..." [even if they factually have.]
Or:
A man [woman] says "No man [woman] would EVER say/do that." [even if a man [[woman]] as a matter of fact, did...
even better, in a Lit class, to hear one woman [or man] say that and a same gendered classmate says "Of course they would...I totally love it, it's perfect."

[Cagliostro]

In answer to the question of this thread, I think the answer is "yes, but only if the reader is the same gender as the writer."

[peter]

Yes, I take on board what you say V. - a thing like this is always going to founder on the rock of what some people say on specific occasions.

I have sympathy with the gender point you make Cag - I *do* believe that in fiction writting [and of course this is by no means always the case], by and large women write more sucesfully for women and men for men; hence I guess why most 'femail directed' books are written by women and vica-versa. [mind you - haven't checked out the 'Mills and Boon' author list to verify this so (not for the first time) may be talking bollocks ]