[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 15 KB, 473x454, 1390884961861.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4884023 No.4884023[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why does it seem like female authors can write very convincing male characters, but male authors seem to have a much harder time writing convincing female characters?

It seems a lot more difficult for a male author to get into the mind of a female character. Why is that?

>> No.4884029

Almost nothing about women is honest

>> No.4884030

An intelligent person can pretend to be retarded but a retard cannot pretend to be smart.

>> No.4884036

>>4884030
That's nice angel. Go create another useless section of education and the workforce out of sheer whining so you can feel successful ^.^

>> No.4884037

>>4884023
What are you talking about?

Men can write great female characters (see Tolstoy and Anna Karenina, for example). Men write very accurate and truthful female characters, but because they don't adhere to certain ideological conceptions of women, they get criticized.

>> No.4884042

>>4884023
>female authors can write very convincing male characters

e.g.?

>> No.4884046

the women from the dream of the red chamber are realistic

>> No.4884057

>>4884023
>characters
>convincing

Hah!

>> No.4884060

it "seems" like that because you're oversimplifying and probably trolling

>> No.4884064

>>4884023

i think women can understand male sexuality far better than men can understand female sexuality

>> No.4884076

The best female characters were written by GEORGE Eliot.
Shrekm8

>> No.4884078

>>4884064
i don't think that's necessarily true. i think women grossly oversimplify male sexuality

>> No.4884079

They're all caricatures,
any way.
I don't read for realism.

>> No.4884092

You probably think that way because you have a feminine mindset. You see a male written by a female and you instantly relate to him more because you're a raging effeminate faggot.

>> No.4884110

men who seek many women are blinded/handicapped by their own fantasies.

those who could have ability to write a woman, dont know any because they have no sex drive and are repulsive to women.

female sex drive probably doesnt work as reality-distorting like the male counterpart, they can remain passive and stay in analytical mode.

>> No.4884127

>>4884023
But Hemingway, Céline, Miller, Fante and Bukowski write the best female characters.

>> No.4884144

Men project their desires onto women because they are programmed to think in sexual terms in a way that women are not.

Heinlein's sexist bullshit is a good example.

>> No.4884146

>>4884023
Eh. I think most people of each gender have a view of the other that isn't the full understanding of the circumstances, or even an attempt -- they're authors, not philosophers or scientists -- but those understandings, averaged, make 'misunderstandings' that may play out better or worse against each other in literature.

That said, the Western Canon is mostly male. In contemporary times, the pillars don't rise as high, except if you're as old as Pynchon or as dead as Wallace.

>> No.4884174

>>4884092
faggot detected

>> No.4884176

I'm not that impressed with most female authors' understanding of men. That's why I'm so impressed with Marguerite Yourcenar and Hilary Mantel. They seem to have a knack for intelligent male characters. Anne Proulx does blue collar males well. Much as I love Virginia Woolf, an awful lot of her male characters are just stuffed shirts.

>> No.4884181

>>4884023
>Why does it seem like female authors can write very convincing male characters

I don't really think this is true. Donna Tartt said she was told no woman had ever written a believable male character when she first published The Secret History, and to be honest, Richard isn't quite believably male.

>> No.4884190

>>4884023
this thread has a very high percentage of retards/intelligent people

>> No.4884200

>>4884023
>get into the mind of a female character.


No author should attempt to get into the mind of any character.
That is the plebbiest 20th century trope.

>> No.4884211

>>4884127

Yeah, that is true.

>> No.4884215

>>4884200
why

>> No.4884220

>>4884181
>Donna Tartt

Is she the hot green-eyed lady with the bob haircut who looks like she would be great in bed.

Oh man I'd like to eat her ass out.

>> No.4884223

>>4884215

Because, it's impossible. It is so hokey.

>> No.4884226

>>4884220

She is such a tart.

>> No.4884227

>>4884215
the writer's best-drawn "character" will be at best an imitation. the writer should strive instead to instill in the reader a subjective experience of being.

>> No.4884236

>>4884227
you mean there's some unique mysterious fountain of juice inside everybody that cant be "faked"? sounds like some shortlived modernist concept to me.

>> No.4884239

I would study women more closely but I would probably have to watch more episodes of Real Housewives of Atlanta, listen to more bad dance pop and hear long long long stories about office tiffs. It just isn't worth the effort. Better to just let your brain shut down when you have to interact with them and not think about things too much.

>> No.4884242

>>4884227

Yes, this. Pages of internal dialogue, "inner landscapes", psychological backstories and reasoning, are all masturbatory and should be clear without having to delve into them. Proust and Henry James are good examples of this bad writing.

>> No.4884243

>>4884226
I bet she has a trimmed bush and an asshole that tastes like apples. A taste reminiscent of her eyes.

>> No.4884251

>>4884236

It's just that "getting into someone's head" is a dated idea. It turns a plausible scenario into a ridiculous farce. Ultimately it's a pointless exercise.

>> No.4884252

>>4884236
there is no "juice," there is nothing intrinsic to a person; he or she is the sum of his or her experiences, which, again, one can only mimic but never fully recreate into a complete individual.

>> No.4884256

>>4884243

Quite a tarty flavor.

>> No.4884261
File: 256 KB, 498x377, tmp_1398666241799-987381219.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4884261

Because women already have been narrating mens live for thousands of years. Man does for woman this has been the longest tradition in human history. Competition for women in the modern era is incompatible with the western female identity. Until women realize that they neglect many biological male needs we will always have a hard time.

Men have gone mad for love. My man shake displays this is in macbeth

>> No.4884273

>>4884251
i'm not defending excessive inner landscapes. even shakespeare could avoid them and knew that people are not always "in character", only in special situations. but he's still THE character creator. you cant deny that ability.

>> No.4884276

It's because females have a hard time presenting themselves as a worthwhile human being in real life, and men are just writing from experience.

A woman, on the other hand, has the opposite experience.

>> No.4884291

>>4884023

I bet if you wrote a great male character, and then at the end changed his name to a females, say Odysseus to Beth, people would think wow what a complex strong female.

That's the trick.

>> No.4884299

When women complain that they're not written like men, I feel like they hate themselves.

>> No.4884540

>>4884023
>Why does it seem like female authors can write very convincing
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

>> No.4884878
File: 15 KB, 200x229, 200px-LeFanu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4884878

Sheridan Le Fanu's "Uncle Silas" has great female characters. My ex and my sister both thought it had to be written by a woman and weren't convinced that "Sheridan" was a man until they looked up his Wiki.

>> No.4884906

>>4884023

I thought Madame Bovary was written well, but it remained sexist.

>> No.4885194
File: 21 KB, 349x466, donna_tartt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4885194

>>4884220
Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

>> No.4885386

>>4884023
Well, I try to think of a woman, and then I take away reason and accountability.

>> No.4885426

But women can't write convincing male characters.

Ayn Rand's worst characters are men who are not sociopaths. Her women and her sociopaths are interesting, but the neurotypical men are not only not interesting, they also are unreal. Empty shells.

Mercedes Lackey can write very interesting sociopathic pervese antiheroes, but, again, her men who are not sociopaths lack any sense of depth or dimension.

Women generally write men best when they write them as characters who exist to fulfill a function, such as Rand's mouthpieces or Agatha Christie's sleuths, rather than people whose existence is independent of that function. It may be this which causes you to think that women write convincing men, if you are sexist and society has taught you to regard men as functional doers of deeds and to identify them with their works while identifying women by their sentiments.

EXEPTIONALLY GOOD female authors exist, who write men as well as any man ever could. But good male authors who write women exceptionally well exist too, and if you're trying to play a game of apples to apples here then we will never agree where the "exceptionally good" line should be drawn and which men and which women are equivalent

Functional deed-doers with little personal depth are acceptable in all kinds of stories, of course. Certain kinds of stories require that your characters be stereotypes, or archetypes. Luthien Tinuviel fulfills a lot of great functions; the Orpheus of Middle-Earth whose song of the sorrows of mortality was so beautiful it made Death weep, the demigod who tore down the Tower of Werewolves through her sheer native power. A friend of mine once wrote a very long essay on interpreting the various stories of Beren and Luthien as an agriculture myth, and he made a really surprisingly strong case for it. But if your characters have the depth of an agriculture myth, they are not convincing characters, they are cardboard.

>But there are more good female authors of male characters than the reverse
The ratio of female to male authors is higher than you think. The most famous authors are generally still men, yes, but I suggest you read more mid-level fiction. For every one mid-level scifi or fantasy writer, there are two Mercedes Lackeys. It is your own sexism that has blinded you to the existence of decent-enough mid-level female authors who just can't quite get dudes who seem like real people.

>But I meant literary fiction, not genre fiction!
No you didn't.

>> No.4885547

>>4884023
they can't, critics just kiss their asses and schmucks like you perpetuate the lie.

>> No.4885573
File: 313 KB, 482x454, Screen shot 2014-05-03 at 1.32.48 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4885573

>>4884023

MFW you've read a book by a female.

>> No.4885608

>>4885386
>Well, I try to think of a woman, and then I take away reason and accountability.

Now take away any modicum of sexual attractiveness and you end up with yourself.

>> No.4885611

>>4885426
>But women can't write convincing male characters.
>Ayn Rand's
Stopped readin' there, anon.

>> No.4885708

>>4885426
damn i wish i could write words good, is this what university does to you or are you just smart?

>> No.4885728

They don't give them flaws.

'Clumsy and/or goofy' is not a flaw.

>> No.4885738

remainder of greek culture marginalizing women echoing through the generations

>> No.4885785

>reading books written by women

>> No.4885843

Can female authors write females?

I doubt that any notable works by a female author could pass the Bechdel Test.

1. The story must have at least two women in it who are known by name

2. The women must talk to each other at some point

3. They must talk talk to each other about a plot point something other than a man

>> No.4885855

>>4885843

Why are people obsessed with names, in The Road no one has a name.

>> No.4885865

>>4885855
Typically, being named is a reliable indication of a character that matters more than one who is not.

>> No.4887532

>>4884174
WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY ABOUT ME YOU PIECE OF SHIT I"LL

>> No.4887536

>>4884042
i found all of woolf's men in 'the waves' convincing
franklin in 'we need to talk about kevin' was also pretty good

>> No.4887544

>>4885608
BTFO

>> No.4887545

>>4884023
Jane Pountney is 50 next year cloned into me with my help she is a whore, home wrecker slut.

>> No.4887606

>>4884037
>because they don't adhere to certain ideological conceptions of women, they get criticized.
You sir are supremely correct.

>> No.4887614
File: 126 KB, 256x376, catchcov-jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4887614

I think Salinger writes some of the most realistic characters ever, especially women.

Contrarians would disagree.

>> No.4887655

>>4887614
>Contrarians would disagree.
We would not.

>> No.4887925

>>4885843
Bechdel can suck a dick

>> No.4887953

>>4887655
10/10

>> No.4887958

>>4887655
kek

>> No.4887975

>>4887925
>can't handle uncomfortable facts about muh sturies coming to light

>> No.4888000

>>4887975
Not really, it's completely irrelevant

>> No.4888008

>>4887655
Funny.

>> No.4888118

>>4884127
All of Bukowski's female characters were really similar tho.

>> No.4888125

>>4884144
>they are programmed to think in sexual terms
no

>> No.4888162

>>4888118
I wouldn't say he portrays his female characters with less variation than his male ones.

>> No.4888177

>>4888162
That's a good point. All of his characters were kind of dull and similar. But I think that was an important part of the stories.

>> No.4888258

Because true art is not about presenting the world as it is, but as it should be.

>> No.4888288

>>4885426

harry potter is a pretty good male character

>> No.4888304

>>4888177
Yes. It's probably also why people call him a misogynist, they focus on the women too much and don't realise he despises the men equally, perhaps even more.

>> No.4888307

>>4888288
Robin Hobb does it decently as well.

>> No.4888318

>female authors can write very convincing male characters

haha lol