From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 6 JAN 93 00:15:51 GMT

Mike Godwin wrote:

>>I would not dream of disputing that the Canon "accepts" more male authors 
>>than female ones. ... But this thread originated in a discussion of the 
>>issue of whether it is difficult for an author of one gender to convey the 
>>point of view of a character of the other. 

HH:
>No, that was not the issue. 

MG: 
>Well, it was *my* issue, in the posting to which you responded. 
>I grant that you raised a different issue. But since you were responding to
>a posting I made, I thought you were responding to its content more 
>directly. 

Oh, I think I *finally* see: you're under the impression that I was
responding to your post in the earlier Anne Rice discussion.  I wasn't; I had
started a separate thread which concerned the perception of women writers as
"women writers" rather than simply "writers".  

MG: 
>>>Representation in the Canon is irrelevant to this issue. 

HH: 
>>I don't think it is. 

MG: 
>I don't see how it's relevant to the issue of whether one sex can 
>adequately represent the feelings of another sex, but perhaps you mean for 
>your comment to be in connection to the issue you raised, rather than what 
>I was talking about in the posting to which you initially responded. 

Perhaps.  Yes, that would be a reasonable expectation.  I usually make
comments that are connected to the issue I raise.  Sometimes not, but
usually.  

MG: 
>>When have women writers not bid to be taken seriously? 

HH
>>I'm not sure what you're asking here.  I was talking about women writers of
>>genre fiction, like Sayers or P.D. James, as opposed to women writers of 
>>"serious" fiction, like Oates. 

MG:
>But I think Sayers, for example, always meant to be taken seriously. 

In her scholarly writings, yes.

MG:
>And George Eliot, a nongenre writer of the last century, certainly did. 

Okay, so you have George Eliot, who wrote under a male pseudonym.  Any other
suggestions?

MG:
>My question came from my feeling that I could not think of an era in which
>those women who wrote did *not* wish to be taken seriously. But perhaps you
>meant "bid" in a different sense than the one I took it to have. I thought
>you were talking about women's motivations, but you may have been talking 
>about (say) their potential as a group. 

Sorry, Mike, this paragraph of yours is confusing to me.  How does it relate
to this paragraph of mine, to which I thought you were responding:

     I find it interesting that in genre fiction, such as mystery, 
     suspense, and fantasy (and I assume science fiction, though 
     I don't read much in that genre), authors like Sayers, Christie, 
     P.D. James, Mary Stewart and Helen MacInnes (not to mention 
     Anne Rice) have taken the male point of view and profited hugely. 
     They have also been able to include a degree of violence that 
     they might not have been able to get away with in "serious" 
     fiction.  Now, is "writing like a man" only a concept that 
     comes into play when women writers bid to be taken seriously? 

Help me out here.

MG:
>>>I note here that there is a distinction between what is misleadingly 
>>>called "writing like a man" and the activity we may call "creating male 
>>>characters." 

HH:
>>Hmmm.  Well, if there is a distinction, I haven't made it, because I don't 
>>know exactly what "writing like a man" means. 

MG: 
>Some critics have argued, in their misogynistic way, that women are less 
>capable or incapable, of the kinds of artistic achievements,
>toughmindedness, intellectual prowess, or range that men are capable of.  

NO WAY!!  Get outta here!  REALLY?!?!?  Ya puttin' me on.

You know, there's this essay by Joyce Carol Oates you should read.  

MG:
>(I note that Camille Paglia seems to say this in SEXUAL PERSONAE.) 

We must understand _Sexual Personae_ differently, then; because it doesn't
seem to me that Paglia says that.

But I think you're digressing from the real thread here.

HH:
>>Anyway, we're not talking 
>>about writers creating believable characters of the opposite sex: we're 
>>talking about writers *inhabiting the points of view* of characters of the 
>>opposite sex.  I think there's a difference.  

MG:
>Well, when you spoke about the Canon and who was "well-received" or not, 
>that seemed to me to go more to the issue of creating believable characters 
>to the issue of "inhabiting points of view." 

Really?  Funny, I remember typing the phrase "point of view" a lot, and I
also remember posting something in which I made a point of saying I wasn't
discussing the issue of creating believable characters.  

How about listing all the female authors you can think of, popular fiction
and literature, who have written from a male point of view (third-person as
well as first)?  That should be interesting, and it wouldn't involve too much
blathering about exactly what point it is we're discussing.  

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books