From: mtaranto@panix.com (Mark Taranto)
Subject: Crossdressing in Literature
Organization: The Inner Clique
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:14:43 GMT


lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett) writes:

> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>> 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*...
>>

> Just as a note, I found this fascinating for a minute and thought about it.
> I also realised that _I_ don't (normally) characterize writers by their
> sex, unless the topic of conversation requires it

Nor do I, and it saddens me that others still think this way.

As for women writing from the point of view of men, and vice versa, I find that
women are, in general, more successful in writing from the *other* viewpoint.

Until recently, I could think of *no* example of a first person narrative where
I thought that a man was convincing as a woman.  Certainly, E. M. Forster
creates realistic women -- but we see them in the third person.

One of Robertson Davies' narrators in THE REBEL ANGELS is a woman.  I love
this book, and the character of Maria -- but Maria is a dream woman, and is
not portrayed the same way or with the same depth that many of Davies' other 
characters are portrayed.

I know a lot of the vocal r.a.b.ble dislike Jay McInerney -- but I think he 
does some *very* interesting things with narrative.  THE STORY OF MY LIFE
is no exception, and is written from the female perspective.  But his female 
is certainly a male's version of a female.

The one man whom I have found completely convincing is Kazuo Ishiguru.
Barbara Hlavin wrote a *wonderful* article about 18 months ago about
the feminine nature of Ishiguru's *male* narrator in THE REMAINS OF THE
DAY.  I had just finished his A PALE VIEW OF HILLS -- which has the most
convincing female narrator I've ever seen by a male.  

For a long time, I wondered how Ishiguru was able to do this.  Forster was
a bit feminine by nature (I'm not referring to his homosexuality here -- there
are plenty of non-effeminate homosexuals), and I wondered if Ishiguru might
have a somewhat effeminate nature.  But last summer, I read David Mura's
TURNING JAPANESE -- and realized that Ishiguru might just be exhibiting
traits which we associate with the feminine in our western culture, but 
permeate the Japanese culture.  Ishiguru tells us *much* by what is left
unsaid -- much like many women whom I know.  This is somewhat like Forster.
While he inundates us with detail -- he holds back information about what 
is important -- thereby underscoring its importance.

Thinking about women -- Judith Guest's ORDINARY PEOPLE comes to mind, 
I remember just how *real* the people seem, and how *real* the dialogue 
seemed.  She wrote the book from the points of view of the son and the 
father.  It really *seems* like it is written by a man -- that is, the 
emotions are true.  Like Ishiguru and Forster, there is something told 
to us by what is left unsaid.  The mother's point of view is only seen 
through the eyes of the son and husband.  This underscores her remoteness.

Maybe we are making progress in thinking about writers who are also women.

In 1962, Anne Sexton said that the best compliment that a woman poet 
could receive was that she writes like a man.  by 1969 she had changed 
her view:  "My comment is this:  'As long as it can be said about a woman
writer, "she writes like a man" and that woman takes it as a compliment,
we are in trouble."


Mark