I like the emotional connection that incorporates stories written by female writers. I have never felt truly close to many characters written by men I’m sure there are exceptions, but I actually can’t recall to mind any at that time. Their characters do exciting stuff, but I don’t really care if the characters live or die. I haven’t become emotionally attached to them. A good example: Harry Potter vs.
Percy Jackson – very, very similar series. Harry, written by a lady, I LIVED his life with him and felt his sorrow, his pain, his happiness. I cried for him greater than once. He was real to me. Percy, written by a man, I WATCHED his life and didn’t give a hoot what came about to him or his pals.
Exciting, fast-paced adventures, but I was not emotionally invested in the characters. Honestly, if they all die at the top I wouldn’t much cared. I find that a lot with male written characters. I enjoyed both series, but for alternative reasons. Is it cheating though, to write characters which are appealing but in all probability unrealistic?Human beings are sometimes UNCLEAR about their motivations and almost all the time uncertain about who they are as people.
The same point can be made for action. The real challenge is to take real life, which regularly lacks in action or exhilaration and make it appealing without altering the facts. Of course there are exceptions for both, but just as a result of a narrative is thrilling doesn’t make it good writing, nor does it make it more interesting always. Depends on what form of reader you’re. If the attention is merely leisure, or sales, then yes, write with the purpose of being clear, black and white, and dramatic.
But one of the vital finest writers wrote to make their readers work, and these were male writers, in a time when female writers weren’t taken heavily anyway. If the query is writing style, direct is best, but showing is better than telling, be clear, but don’t dumb it down for the reader, every writing class will let you know that these are the except rules for writing. But if it is a query of character and content material?Let your characters speak for themselves, and if your personality doesn’t know who she or he is, don’t faux she or he does. That’s why usually we feel for the characters of female writers more, as a result of they are people we in reality know. Olivia I totally consider you about Harry and PercyAnother point here: The more we define male and female literature, the more we create an excuse for one to be considered better than the other.
There is a stigma at the present time about so called “emotional writing” or my favorite “confessional poetry”, regrettably this has been lumped into stereotype “female writing”. Even the term “chicklet” is insulting. A book written about emotions, or challenging circumstances, illnesses, mental issues, and even about women in regular…they become beach reads and “social issue” books, not literature. That is not to say that they should all be considered great literature, but the subject matter, exhilaration level, or clarity of the characters self potential aren’t be the premise of what is taken seriously. These days, one cannot write a book about female friendship with out it being in comparison to “divine secrets and techniques of the ya ya sisterhood”.
Male friendships, with their Roman divinity yeah, let’s just forget that sexual part are respected, while female friendships are reduced to chicklet reads. Why does “brotherhood” have a positive connotation and “sisterhood” a poor, fluffy one?Sure, Toni Morrison is great and he or she wrote about women, but be honest, she hangs in a special hall than the greats doesn’t she?A especially female one?Or maybe even an African American one?The connotations wish to change, and until they do we might be trapped in male and female writing, one husky, staggering and honest, ha!now that’s I’m brooding about, even the word honest means something alternative when talking about male and feminine pieces. A male work is “honest” as in issues are on the floor, that its loud and proud. but a “female” piece as it is categorized at the present time is honest as in “a chilling or haunting confession” or as in we’re revealing secrets and techniques. Even Austen, in all her wit and satiric beauty is fading from consciousness. Jane Austen, the women that reawakened Shakespeare’s romantic comedy, who delivered to light a women nobody wanted to admit existed, is now idea of by English professors all over as a “chicklet”.
I’d be the last to say that because a book keeps you interested implies that its bad writing. I have read Dan Brown and I do imagine his writing to be good, in that it gets his point across precisely the way HE wants it to get across, clear and in an exciting way. What I’m saying though is to not forget the contrary. That just as a result of a book doesn’t entertain you doesn’t mean that it’s not good either. Some books are meant to be highbrow, to make you think, to spotlight a certain culture or subculture, value or loss of value, not meant to even tell a story.
Some books are meant just to fill you in on a particular person or a type of person, and often that means not growing drama where none exists. A book, read by a careful reader, does not need things to “happen” and while a book has to be clear to a definite point, it may be clear in being unclear. Stein did it brilliantly, and admittedly, she flubbed the BEING clear about being uncertain part and is still regarded a superb. And why are we speaking about movies?Books aren’t movies, and expectantly are not written with the concept of later becoming a film. A movie is two hours give or take, it does NEED to maintain you interested the complete way via, a book can take time and is usually not done in one sitting, and prefer i mentioned can be written for a number of of purposes, one being as the author felt the calling. We are looking to be more careful in regards to the way we discuss literature I think.
We can only do plenty to change the folk, though Eliot certainly did when he forced people to keep in mind his Greek quotations, not admitting defeat to the lazy readers of HIS era and I am NOT saying that we should start that up again, that would be TOO extreme but as members of the writing group, and this goes for writers, editors, english and writing professors and critics, we want to be guilty when using words for meanings aside from they’re literal. We need to be cautious of the connotations and try and browse without prejudice. Perhaps if a book written in regards to the trip in finding oneself is not read with the preset mind-set that any book like that is bound to be missing in “interest” another subjective term which currently means entertainment value possibly the book can take delivery of a correct evaluation and perhaps be praised whether it is indeed worthy of praise for any genius it could possibly possess. Not be sent off to be beach read of the month. We write what we are compelled to write, and that’s the accurate way to go about it, but is every person writing that way?Or are some writing for the money or the celebrity or the puzzle to solve?Where has the artistry gone?Some writers, I’m sure, write for money or for fame, and maybe don’t write what they’d really like to write. But others work in jobs they don’t want to become profitable, so I can’t fault anyone for that.
There are practitioners in every profession who are there because they fell into it—it’s a job. But we can positively notice, as readers, when writers enjoy their work. There’s something alternative concerning the product they turn out. A experienced technician can end up a book of quality, true, but a skilled technician who enjoys his work puts a unique spin on it. It’s easy to see a evaluation in the world of teaching.
A person given to educating will possibly not ever work in a classroom—he may teach each day in tons of of how. A classroom teacher might teach by profession, but not be a herbal teacher gifted that way. Or, a herbal instructor might find himself in the lecture room, inserting his gift to work in a career that pays him for it. The teacher who isn’t one via natural gifts isn’t kept from the lecture room, as a result of he can learn the skills to impart assistance to college students. Yes, I know, some people shouldn’t be allowed in a school room. Writers who are in it solely for the money?They can be just as successful as the non herbal teacher.
I also disagree that a book doesn’t must entertain. Fiction is basically enjoyment. Novels may have been written at one time to disseminate a message, but that’s in no way a massive purpose today. Yes, writers can put messages into their works, but most don’t write to sway critiques. A few may pick up pen to make their message more palatable via fiction, but most novelists are storytellers first.
And the viewers of today, as we’ve both said, wants to be entertained. That’s the truth of the culture. Writers can pander to the culture, rebel against it, problem it, lead it ahead. But they are able to’t write solely for their own excitement after which get upset if their work appeals to no one else. Stories are a shared medium.
Do men write what appeals to more of the studying public?I don’t think that’s the case. But most men I know gravitate toward male writers and are hesitant about deciding on up a book written by a woman. Most women, but it, will read both male and female writers. Thus, the male authors are read more. Would men read more from women in the event that they didn’t know the author was female?I’m sure research were done. Nothing about this says that men are better writers.
Actually, it speaks more to the expectancies of the reader. But what’s wrong with a reader expressing his or her opinion in the course of the books read?Preferring one type of book over an alternate doesn’t mean one’s better written. It just means the reader has a alternative—for style, for topic, for pacing. Hi guys!No gender war please!Certainly there are changes. Being an author I feel that gender represents one’s innermost emotions…doesn’t matter much.
But the writing with out message is food with out salt. So a book with a realistic strategy, of course in a traditional style, fulfill one’s emotional hunger no matter if from a male’s perspective or a female’s viewpoint, the objective is to create wholesome characters with a few traits. A female colors it with female type and male perceives it in manly ways. So this change is absolutely normal. Chayanika SinghWell…Mrs. Dalloway is interesting, fantastically written, wonderful in its mental complexity, and genius in its architecture.
Written by a woman, about a female protagonist, where technically nothing happens anyway a celebration. It is considered one of the greatest novels of all time, and revolutionized the concept of the unconventional itself. It mastered stream of awareness, free oblique discourse, and time manipulation, all of which even the easiest and most “unique” novels of today would not exist without. SO I was brooding about what you concept of Mrs. Dalloway as it sort of feels to be at odds along with your idea about clarity and plot being necessary for the leisure and attention value of a singular, as most would agree that Mrs. Dalloway has lots of both.
I believe that we all agree that we each love books by both male and feminine authors and don’t like books by both male and feminine authors. But there is nothing wrong with having a option nor is there the rest wrong with declaring changes in writing styles. Men and ladies are various and they’re alternative in lots of ways. Just as a lady raised in a city is alternative from a woman raised on a farm. Children who are homeschooled are alternative from people who go to public faculties and they in turn are various from kids who go to non-public faculties.
And yes, all groups have commonalities as well as adjustments. I think I accept as true with the writer of this text. I hold to a more complementarian view, however I do think a lot of what’s described in our world as feminine or masculine is often culturally centric and not really associated with the true elements that differ among men and women, but there are always exceptions to the regular rules. The men and ladies among us who can be argued to fall into that exception are among the many most appealing as they not only know life and the world from the cultural expectations but even have the gifts that make them more attuned in capable in what the opposite gender has often dependent. I am a male writer to boot, and some of my works have an overly effeminate overtone or aesthetic contrasted with a harsh bluntness that could be more suited to a man’s work.
It mixes the stylish with the edgy. I don’t know what I’d do without one of the crucial most grotesquely feminine literature and the most disgustingly masculine writings as part of my repertoire of affects.