Forum / Gender perspective

James Lloyd Davis
May 26, 09:22am

Eamon Byrne, in a comment on one of my flash pieces and as he often does, set me to thinking.

I am from the generation which developed the statement, "It's a {enter attribute, i.e. 'guy' or 'girl,' 'black' or 'white,' etc} thing. You simply wouldn't understand." Personally, it's a concept that I believe to be restrictive; not only limiting, but the very soul and essence of bigotry, the wellspring of stereotypical notions.

As a writer, I have always rebelled against the idea that your characters should be limited to perspectives with which you are familiar, as embodied by the maxim, "Write what you know." If that's the rule, how would you ever learn new things or transcend your own 'notions'? I believe that a writer must develop the ability to get within the mind of his/her characters, acquire a mind with more than mere sympatico, understanding, but must become empathic.

Method is the key.

But what about gender? That's the biggie, the great barrier for many people. A racial, or cultural mind could be shaped and molded to perspective through empathy, yes, but what about gender? How do you achieve the perspective, if you are a man, of that a woman would have? Conversely, how would a woman achieve the voice or the eyes of a man? I know how I would try to do it, but what about you?

Having pulled the pin on this grenade, I'll step away from the table.

I'm really curious about method, and would love to hear some ideas from you, from this group, one of the most intelligent forums I've encountered for authors.

Susan Tepper
May 26, 09:46am

One of my favorite things is writing from the male perspective: both adult males and boys of all ages. My last two novels have male protagonists.
I think it is a journey into an understanding and appreciation of the nuances that account for gender differences. I find writing male characters more "thrilling" in a sense, than my female characters, because I'm playing around in an area that is foreign to my woman-voice-brain.
It's like entering a walled-off zone (think China prior to 1980).
This writing of male characters allows me to crack the zone, get inside and savor the differences. I urge everyone who hasn't
"crossed gender" in writing to go for it!

Gary Percesepe
May 26, 10:00am

betraying gender, at some point, always comes into the picture for me

as my pal judith butler would put it....

Susan Gibb
May 26, 12:44pm

I sometimes like to "think like a man" and I don't really know how it comes off in the writing, but I think most women writers would find it easier to write from the opposite gender's pov than men writers (under the age of 90 at least, and even then, they still don't fully understand us). BTW, this is all said in good fun.

Ann Bogle
May 26, 01:23pm

I enjoy narrating from a third person male point of view; first person male narration is mostly out for me. I tried it in a story once. The story is called "Rule Out Euthymia" and appears at Mad Hatters' Review. In the story, the eldest of six sisters narrates. In one version, not the published one, I changed one word on the first page, and voila! I had a male first person narrator: eldest brother of five sisters who puts on lipstick with the youngest sister at department stores. It's akin to the miraculous to read Andre Dubus' female-focused third person narrations in Adultery and Other Choices.

Cherise Wolas
May 26, 05:56pm

I love writing in a man's voice. I love writing sex from a man's perspective.

I've just read two books by a UK author, Chris Cleave, Little Bee, and Incendiary. Little Bee is written from two female, alternating perspectives, and Incendiary is written in a form of a letter by a woman. I will check out Ann Bogle's suggestion by Andre Dubus, and for those interested in additional cross-gender writing, I highly recommend Cleave. They are two books that make you wish you wrote them yourself, even if your own history, background, interests, knowledge, etc. would make that impossible.

Julie Innis
May 26, 06:06pm

really enjoyed reading everyone's responses here. Most of what I've written has been in a male limited third, though the two stories I'm working on now are in male first POV. I really like how Susan T. describes it - as cracking the zone, savoring the differences. Lately too I've been thinking a lot about society's false assumptions about women - far far many more assumptions it seems than about men, from both men and women sadly. Had a testy back and forth with someone today on this topic and, more pointedly, on why women choose to malign other women, an impulse that I, as a feminist, find abhorrent.

Anyway, I digress, but I think this plays into why I so often choose a male POV - more wiggle room, less BS.

eamon byrne
May 26, 06:15pm

Seems to me there're two issues here (at least). Content and language. The two are obviously connected, with the former generally dictating the latter, and consequently the author's gender usually is revealed. It's mainly when you break from purely gender-specific material - which is what James did in his Anna Mandez story; which is what Beckett does in his 'stories'; which is what Henry James does in his 'tales' - that you get the opportunity to write in a gender-neutral voice.

Of course you could write a war-battle scene using 'female' language; you could write a description of a pink ribbon using 'male' language. But to what purpose? Camp irony? You'd be back in the realm of the obvious, of the cliche.

Bottom line is, with stuff common to our human core, language need not be one nor the other. Language's great prerogative is that it need obey no rules. Choosing to write 'yo dude' or 'like, gosh' might indicate an author's cultural imprisonment; equally, it might serve a valid purpose of the text.

Susan Tepper
May 26, 11:23pm

Yes, why must we limit ourselves to men writing male protagonists and women writing the female voice? It gets stifling. It's exciting to write from the other gender pov.
And more chance of discovery as both a writer and a human being.
To address what Eamon has said: well the fact is that "story" is all about voice. Period.
So the writer has to choose and make the voice real, regardless of gender. Otherwise, you may as well write non-fiction. Fiction without voice is dead on the page

James Lloyd Davis
May 27, 06:21am

Voice is an element, though 'voice' has many aspects. All voices consist of varying portions of universal ingredients, such as intellect, emotion, sensuality. A voice that tends heavily toward the cerebral could easily resemble the "gender-neutral voice" that Eamon mentioned. A voice with predilections for the sensual and emotional finds referential comfort in the physical differences that define gender in the traditional sense, but not always so.

Ultimately it will be the physical point of reference in a work of fiction that alerts the readers to the realities of gender. In the case of my Anna Mendez story it was the dialogue, the words "...young lady." Eamon was surprised at this because he had assumed the voice of the piece was masculine. His conclusion as a result was to understand that, in many ways, the intellectual and emotional experiences of both men and women are not at true opposite poles of the human experience.

What separates us is truly superficial, wonderfully so when you consider the true beauty and rich experiences of human sexuality, but superficial nonetheless in the intellectual sphere.

Yes, it is exciting to dare to speak beyond our experience, and yes, there is rich material available as to exemplify this, but my real question is:

How do you do it?

How do you get there?

Or is it one of those phenomena that tumbles into your writing, inexplicably, as if you are channeling your characters from a small town in Iowa?

Or ... is it a secret? Like the fixative Degas developed for his pastels. Or my mother's recipe for Maryland crab cakes, which she always swore she would take to the grave and did.

Susan Tepper
May 27, 12:16pm

James, to address your last part:
It is not a secret-- like the crabcakes (please could you get hold of that recipe!!)

But seriously, changing gender in writing is a matter of "entering." It is what actors do all the time. They "inhabit" characters.

In Shakespeare and Shaw, men have played women and vice-versa.

The writer simply hunkers down and sees the character being written. Lets the character come "in." Feels the character in the writers skin and organs by visualizing the character being written. The same way you do when writing a character of your own gender.

Not hard, or particularly mysterious. I believe that it's a matter of permission and removal of personal censorship. Once the writer gives over to whatever appears and wishes to be written, then that writer can produce any gender, any scene, etc etc.

Voice teachers call it: giving up the throat. Once the singer gives up on the idea that singing coming out of the throat, the voice and range improves dramatically.

Linda Simoni-Wastila
May 27, 07:11pm

Interesting convo here. The protags in my two novels are male. Not sure there's a method to getting the voice (and readers rarely doubt the maleness of their voices) other than when I write my first draft(s), I totally immerse myself in their character.

Yep, I become my character. It's sort of like acting -- I totally immerse myself in my character.

My guys tend to be pretty troubled (and I'm not, for the most part): substance users, bipolar, narcissistic, bisexual. I get into character by reading other authors who write similar guys -- Brett Easton Ellis, James Frey, etcetera. My crit group has men, and they apply their 'guydar' all the time.

The toughest scenes to write involve sex. Ah-hem. That's when having my own personal anatomy would come in handy. Peace...

Linda Simoni-Wastila
May 27, 07:13pm

Oh, the secret to great crabcakes? Use lump, only, and 3 Ritz crackers crumbled per 8 ounces of crab. And go minimal on that Old Bay. Form them 3-4 hours ahead of time, keep in fridge until ready to cook. Peace...

Gary Percesepe
May 27, 09:27pm

once, long ago, i "heard" a character in my head. i tried to listen. it was a young woman, and she had something to say. not knowing better, i listened and tried to tell her story--first person pov.

looking back, had i known what i know now, would i have been terrified to write her? perhaps.

here is the story which emerged--her name is zoe

http://www.fictionaut.com/stories/gary-percesepe/missionary

i cannot recall if i wrote another, until quite recently, writing a new novel--more about that another time, perhaps...

thanks, all, for multiplying perspectives here--

James Lloyd Davis
May 28, 10:20am

No, Linda, my Mom only used Ritz crackers for a mock apple pie. Her recipe had no fillers like that, but did include mustard, both red and green peppers. She had multiple spices and a few other 'secret ingredients' to make up a binding mix. We were not allowed to watch her stir it all up before she put it in the fridge to 'settle.'

My mother would probably open her veins if anyone found Old Bay seasoning in her kitchen. No, this is one recipe that eludes me.

James Lloyd Davis
May 28, 10:57am

I've made fun of it, but I have actually used the Stanislavski Method to get into some of the characters whose perspective and voice I wish to use. Sometimes, I'll go so far as to practice dialogue to get a sense of the character's true voice, internally or behind closed doors, of course. Hopefully, this methodology won't make me as strange as some actors I've met.

I think writing is not something that makes the practitioner 'normal' in social terms, but writers tend to be somewhat less outrageous than some actors, but we can learn useful things from every branch of the arts.

When I was younger, I never would consider even attempting to write from a woman's perspective, not from fear of failure, but from an even greater fear, the fear that someone may think less of me as a man if I succeed in writing through the mind of a woman.

The nice thing about age is that you lose just about every restrictive bone in your psyche. At least, I have. The most potent tool a writer can develop may be the ability to lose the self images that most people construct. Lose your ego and you can gain the ability to empathise.

The second most potent tool a writer needs is simply to listen. Just listen.

Susan Tepper
May 28, 11:56am

All the input here seems to be right on target. Stanislavski method is an excellent tool for writers. But I'm still in a quandry over those crabcakes

Linda Simoni-Wastila
May 28, 01:18pm

Yes, Ritz absolutely makes the best mock apple pie, but why use crackers when apples will do? ;^)

I find the crackers are needed just to bind the lumps together.

Dry mustard... yes, that goes in mine. I put a scant sprinkling of Old Bay in, and diced red pepper. I roast a red pepper, skin it, and puree it with a homemade (preferable) mayonnaise and a little thai dried hots for a nice aoili.

But do so agree about age and ego... nothing to lose, everything to gain. Empathy is a wonderful asset, and nothing feels better as a writer than to wear someone else's heart on my sleeve.

Off to check out Stanislavski method - me not got no writing education...

Gary Percesepe
May 29, 10:54am

some of you may have read my piece, "women & men" here on fn--

which is here: http://www.fictionaut.com/stories/gary-percesepe/women-and-men

so anyway, stacey richter responded to it, and i thought her response was funny, heartbreaking, and worth sharing, perhaps here?

so here is stacey--she gave me permission to post this:

all:

stacey richter gave me permission to post her response to this piece, which is on FB, and goes like this:

Stacey Richter You're also totally right. The women do do everything, we shepherd the emotions of men, and we do do it because we carry you, but that doesn't mean we aren't angry about it--like many blind, biological processes, the novelty wears off. Then we start to think: Why are only men erecting buildings? It is because of the word "erect"? Of course it's ... See Morebecause of the word erect, assholes! Then we come to the part where you're wrong: one day, in some brave, crazy spree, a woman manages to erect her own building. The other women, then, instead of thinking *finally*, think: Wait a sec, how come she's doing that? I should be doing that! Or we think: How wonderful she's erecting things, too bad she's got such a big ass while mine is nice and small. Because, Gary, women don't fight over men. Women fight each other and men are simply the prize. There are women who'll swoon over a man she never would have glanced at otherwise because she knows he belongs to a lady who's smart and talented and admired. These configurations can be almost lesbian, so intensely esteemed is the lady, and though I hate to go all Freudian on your ass, it's a classic romantic triangle from childhood--mommy and daddy and their little girl, and which one does daddy love best? Because women compete, we compete, we compete as much as captains of industry and football players and building erectors, but instead of going outward we go sideways and compete with each other for who is the prettiest & bestest in our little worlds, and that's not even the worst part. The worst part is that after a while we forget about the women beside us and go inward--telling ourselves we are too fat and old and hairy or otherwise unfuckable in a general sense, no matter how much we're getting anyway, and then we stay home and cry or stare at our pores or try not to get the job, or publish on a tiny press or write only about boring shit, like how the light falls on the vase beside the lake, and that's why men rule the world even though we are so much fucking smarter. That's how it happens here, in the first world. We do it to ourselves

Susan Tepper
May 29, 02:15pm

everyone fights everyone. that's why this world is such a fucking drag most of the time. that's why most of us write, are compelled to do so, to escape all the stinking reality of hate that seems to lurk around every bend in the road. there is poison in our waters, in our hearts and minds.
it's got to stop somewhere /somehow /sometime soon

Myra King
May 30, 03:56am

I totally agree with Susan Tepper about ‘voice’ being paramount in Literary fiction.
Voice, as you all know, does not just mean dialogue but is the whole essence of the character which should infuse his/her actions and the way he/she thinks.
Men, and here I generalise for simplicity, tend to be very visual, whereas women tend to focus on how they feel. For example, a woman may notice what a guy is wearing as an indication of his standing in society (then she may feel secure, impressed, protected etc) a man will notice what a woman is wearing if it brings out her natural assets. A shadowed rise of her nipple, the fold of fabric curved over her hip. Or if he’s a leg or bottom man (and you have to know your character for this) he will notice the hip and leg hugging-ness of her jeans or the tightness of her ass.
We are different but fundamentally we are the same. Both genders want to be loved, respected, and cared for so our stories do not have to be stereotypical. And nor do our male and female POV’s.

Susan Tepper
May 30, 08:50am

A few people wrote to me expressing concern over my well-being. No, I'm not depressed. In fact I'm an optimist.

Let me clarify what I wrote above: "everyone fights everyone".

It was meant as a political statement concerning the oil spill, the wars, the rising unemployment, the loss of homes, the threat of terrorism, the collapsing Euro, and all else that is going wrong in our world.

I don't think women are smarter than men. Smart and stupid runs the course in both genders. It's simply that that more men are in power in the political and financial arenas. Therefore when they make hideous choices, men in general get the blame. Margaret Thatcher, as an example, made some hideous choices.
It's just the nature of things.
We're still the animal kingdom despite evolution...

George LaCas
Jun 08, 12:23am

From my point of view (you should pardon the expression), it is not a question of writing "like a man" or "like a woman." To attempt to do so would invite cliche and stereotypes, even sexism. And, if done on purpose, would expose the slant of the writer, which might tend to undercut the writer's purpose and thereby cancel out the effectiveness of the fiction.

Rather, I have to get inside the head of whatever character whose voice I happen to be writing in. The gender of that character, while obviously important to his or her characterization, is not the sum total of his or her character.

I've written from male POVs and also female, both 1st and 3rd person. Many scenes involve love and sex, fights, the difficulties of relationships, but usually there's something larger happening (i.e. the storyline). Other times those male and female characters are alone, thinking or acting.

In short, I don't approach the gender-perspective issue with the assumption that a male character must think, speak or act like a man, or a female character like a woman. Rather, each individual character has to be given an individual voice.

For example, in a scene I don't ask myself: "Ms. Y is about to reply to Mr. X, so as a woman what would she say?" but instead "Ms. Y, who has a temper but tends to disguise her anger as humor, now says to her idiot boyfriend Mr. X ..."

Even in a piece about the battle of the sexes featuring an Everywoman and an Everyman, Mr. X and Ms. Y must still be portrayed as individuals.
You must log in to reply to this thread.