From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Books I Got For Xmas
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:23:48 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121

In article <3JAN93.19412471@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
[lots of interesting post deleted]
>In the essay "(Woman) Writer: Theory and Practice", Oates discusses
>the predicament of woman writers:
>
>     A woman who writes is a writer by her own definition; but she
>     is a *woman* writer by others' definitions.  (Among these
>     others are, of course, women.)  The books she writes are
>     assemblages of words but her sexual identity is not thereby
>     dissolved or transcended, unless she writes under a male
>     pseudonym and keeps her identity secret.  Books are neuter
>     objects, *its*; writers are *he* or *she*...
>
I can post again! :)
Just as a note, I found this fascinating for a minute and thought about it.
I also realised that _I_ don't (normally) characterise writers by their
sex, unless the topic of conversation requires it...and I usually use the
term "author" as opposed to writer in any case, which feels somewhat less
"gender-specific" to me.  An author's gender is usually given by their name
and when it is not (more often the case for me in something like
medieval French writings), I sometimes make mistakes.  This kind of mistake
doesn't normally seem terribly important to me, unless the topic is one
that concerns gender.  I thought Manly Wade Wellman was a woman for an awful
long time.  
>
[more deleted]
>     The old prejudice dies hard, that a woman is a muse or nothing
>     -- that is, an inspiration to the (male) artist; never an
>     artist in her own terms... Gerard Manley Hopkins states
>     dogmatically that "the male quality *is* the creative gift." 
[snip]
>
I'm an artist, i.e. I paint.  I don't ever remember being characterised as
a *female* artist, as opposed to a male one.  I've often been characterised
as an aspiring artist, or as a fantasy artist, but it seems my sex is less
in question than my expertise or source of subject matter.  Actually, I
believe the matter of my gender comes into play much more often when it is
a choice of subject matter.  Let's suppose I want to paint something of a
sensual nature.  In my opinion, in our (American) society, the female body is
regarded as "sensual" by both woman and men, and instantly recognised as
such...the male nude does not lead to anywhere near such an immediate reaction.
As a woman, do I have an obligation to paint male nudes?  If I paint female
nudes, what does that say about me?  If a woman painter portrays a female 
with a "denigrating" attitude, does this carry more weight because the
artist is a woman?  I wonder if a male artist ever considers what implications
he is giving about his sex in the choice of his subject matter?
>
[snip]
>To connect this with a recent r.a.b. thread: would Anne Rice's
>skill (or lack thereof) at writing from a male point of view excite
>any comment at all if she had published under a male pseudonym?

Yes.  It just wouldn't have been discussed in the same fashion.  If she had 
done so poorly, she would have been accused of poor characterization, and had
she done so well, she would have been given credit.  Along the same line,
*male* authors (who are, despite the quote often "genderized") are also
discussed in a similar fashion when they choose to attempt to portray females.
There was a whole thread in the science.fiction.written group on Heinlein's
inability to adequately portray a female.  Would this have been a valid
question if he had choosen to write under a female pseudonym?

			Laura
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books