/lit/ - Literature

>>11715287
>implying female characters acting like the common woman would be interesting

>>11715287
yeah giving so much credit to femoids is cringe

but that's ideal?

>>11715287
>girls actually like it when they are depicted that way

>author writes characters
Maybe you should be reading adult literature?

>write women as men with tits
>never once mention their tits

>>11715287
>author doesn't actually interact with women so he has no idea how to write them

How do you write woman without being one. It's not like you are able to know the inner workings of a female character like you can with a male one. while the sex can have little to do with the personality and story, making a character believable is difficult. I can see how some people in literature can exist in real life, but other people are just works of fiction no matter how you look at it

>>11715287
Maybe not exactly as you like it, but it'll do.

>>11715378
Is it good?

>>11715376
Just don't fall for the game. Feminist critique of men trying to write women goes so deep that you'll never satisfy them. Even if you create a female character that meets every standard they have, their next critique will be that you only made one of them.
This is popular doctrine.

>>11715396
Feminists typically want women to be written as men with tits. It's what they're aspiring to be.

>>11715376
>I've only ever related to dogs and cats.
>I can only write men as dogs.
>With dog minds.
>I even try to make them human.
>Alas.

>>11715376
surprisingly ive learned more about the female mind reading female written japanese works than reading western female authors. Western female authors just kind of leave this gray area in their works where im not really sure if im just supposed to interpret the meanings or if there was any meaning at all. Also they tend to nitpick on little quirks of characters in the story as if it were some extremely fascinating thing when in reality its contrived and not even worth mentioning in most cases.

>>11715298
Ideal, but not realistic.

>>11715287
hrt is the answer

>>11715462
But what was the question? Taking hormones won't help you write a character

>>11715396
>>11715403
This is why you don't try to please them. Depict the real, no matter how grotesque, twisted, or misogynistic.

>>11715443
Seems interesting. Could you expand upon what you mean by quirks that they focus on?

>>11715352
Haha well quipped my fellow patrician. I for one only read third mark calculus and fluid dynamics texts.
>>11715357
Applies to 99% of genrelit.
>>11715376
How do you write about dragons without having seen one. It's not like you are able to know the intricate details of a dragon like you can with a human.
I don't know, it's almost like it's an author's job to imagine things.

>>11715477
This. Most trannies are cringe caricatures of actual women.

women do not want to just be another woman. do just write about a man with a vagina and you are safe with your character

>>11715443
What Japanese writers did you read?

>>11715494
Women should stop self inserting and just enjoy the show.

>>11715376
>write a man
>remove all logic and reasoning

>>11715287
>Write in a setting where women are extinct and only trannies exist just to avoid this problem

>>11715542
>tfw I want to write a novel of ideas with major polyphony and so half of the characters are female, so I can't epic meme with dumbing them down, removing logic and reasoning, and turning them into (realistic) neurotic wrecks
What have I gotten myself into

>>11715559
a false dichotomy?

>>11715542
while it's played as a joke, essentially women reach conclusions based on emotional impact, and act on truths that they themselves conclude based on their emotional response to the environment.

Men use both logic and emotion, the latter when acting in a fit of rage.

this trick doesn't work because you cannot deny there are personality traits that lean masculine and feminine. unless you are purposefully creating a female character that acts masculine

>>11715506
What do you think?

>>11715484
>How do you write about dragons without having seen one. It's not like you are able to know the intricate details of a dragon like you can with a human.
>I don't know, it's almost like it's an author's job to imagine things.
Dragons aren't real, the author can say whatever the fuck he wants. Women, on the other hand, are quite real.

>>11715608
maybe you're right.

>>11715287
>author writes female(male) characters as women with dicks