As long as I'm pissed...

[kaigou]

Let's get this clear. If I hear one more time that a woman cannot write a man, a gay man, a straight man, a gun-toting man, a young man, or a cane-using gray-haired doddering old man -- and all criticisms often said by a MAN -- I'm going to go fucking ballistic. I'm warning you, people, I'm a donkey on the edge. I have a temper and I'm past the point of being afraid to use it!

Look, it's bullshit, plain and simple. That's my opinion, and nothing anyone says is gonna change it. You can agree with me, you can point out disagreements, but if you flame me, take it elsewhere or get deleted. Argue about it on your own damn journal. Not interested, because this post is me stating that I think it's bullshit. Here, let's try on a few examples for size. All examples edited to remove names, but not genders.

1. But we should go slow." D looked away, then looked back. "Can I ask if - if you've -"
   
   "No, I haven't. I never thought I would. But I'm as certain of this as anything in my life. I trust you. I love you! And I want to give myself to you."
   
   D sat humbled by his new love's words. He brought one hand up to trace M's jaw line. "I didn't dare to hope for this, to believe that you would return my feelings."
   
   "I do. So let me -"
   
   D put two fingers to M's lips. "We will, we will. I promise. But not tonight."
   
   
2. ...T walked towards his partner with slow, deliberate - almost predatory - steps, eyes fixed on his face. A hand reached for the duffle bag's strap and slipped it off C's shoulder in one spare movement. C didn't twitch; he was a coil of dangerous stillness. His hand twisted ever so slightly, catching the strap of the bag as it fell by his wrist, to let it slip more slowly to the ground without ever breaking eye contact, in a move that was so minimalist it was almost a threat, like two great cats watching each other, waiting to see what move the other would pull.
   
   
3. He longs for this moment more than any other. It is what he lives for, and when she returns his embrace, he gives himself over to this moment, at peace once again.
   
   He raises his head and gently touches her cheek and she tilts her head and closes her eyes. His hands are hard and her skin is soft, and he wonders for a moment if she'll pull back, but of course she doesn't. She never has, and it is at times like this that he knows what his purpose is in life.
   
   His is here to love her, to hold her in his arms, to protect her. He is here to learn from her and to receive her love in return. His is here because there is no other place to be.
   
   
4. He hesitantly put his hands on her knees, a supplicating gesture as he knelt, looking up. "In college, I read fairy tales for a class, and it was like the war. Happily ever after, right?" He ducked his head. "I'm scared. I don't know what to do, after that. I don't know how it works. I'm not an easy person to be with. I'm only a decent cook, I don't know anything about movies, I'm not very sociable, I don't always know what to say... "
   

Now. You tell me which excerpts were written by men, and which were written by women.

Because the claim that started this post really pisses me off. I've read Ian Fleming's novels, and all of them have that feeling like someone who really damn well knows the spy business wrote those stories -- but Tom Clancy, who only used research available publically, came up with a book that had the Navy and the Pentagon scrambling to investigate him to make sure he hadn't revealed national secrets. When was the last time you read a book that had a murder in it? Did you think, "hunh, that would've been FAR more realistic if the author had first-hand experience as a murderer and could prove s/he is sitting on death row at this very instance." Have you ever read a book that had you thinking, this person so gets what it's like to be a woman, that you're shocked to realize the author was a man? Or vice versa?

It is true that there are women who cannot write realistic gay male characters. It is also true that there are gay men who cannot write realistic heterosexual women. And there are writers everywhere who cannot write realistic characters of one niche or another. But these statements would have to come with the clarification to some degree that these writers therefore SUCK. Maybe not at everything but at that detail? Yes. Does that make them representative of all writers trying to write that type of character? NO. So shut the fuck up and stop whining about how someone not of the character's background, gender, orientation, culture, or whatever-the-fuck cannot therefore write a character of that type. It's bullshit.

A good writer will suck you in and convince you, even despite yourself, that what you are reading is The Way It Is. I have favorite novels on my shelf that cover everything from sharecroppers to sailors. Hell, until I'd read Kim, I thought Rudyard Kipling had to be a Gloucestor man, born and bred on the big blue water. Is he somehow less of a writer because he only listened in the pubs and never went out for a season of fishing? I don't see anyone claiming that no man can write a woman as well as a woman. The body of literature denies that claim, as much as it does that a woman can't write a man. And I just don't fall for the crap that sexual orientation is any different, really; it's SEX. Maybe the mechanics are a bit different, but if you're not writing porn, it doesn't fucking matter. It's still two characters interacting, and if you can write two men, two women, two goddamn dogs made of concrete, you can keep going from there.

Bloody fucking hell! What a blasted useless day. One fucking thing after another, and then the classic whine of "women can't write this" -- where the hell are the complaints from the women about "men can't write this"? Oh, right, MEN have been writing women since WAY before women have been writing MEN. And while there are plenty of romanticized versions -- from Jane Eyre up to the modern fen slash writer -- there are just as many where in reading you get lost and think, OMG, this person MUST be a ____, to totally grok how I feel, as a fellow ____. And then SURPRISE. The author is a white, middle class, somewhat well educated person writing from a small study in fucking SUBURBIA, and yet s/he has totally, somehow, grokked what it's like to be a minority of a disparate sexual orientation living in the ghetto. This is not a remarkable thing, for a writer. This is simply a sign of a damn good writer.

Besides, if I had to be personally experienced with everything I write -- in the strictly literal reading of "write what you know" -- it'd be a damn poorer story set for me, and every other frickin' writer out there. Forget your damn fantasy! If you've never seen a dragon, met a fairy, killed someone, shot a gun, popped a wheelie on a motorcycle, robbed a bank, fallen in love, had children, then don't fuckin' write it. Losing a lot of options there, eh. Yeah. So if you're tempted to whine that someone not of your gender, your orientation, your background, your education, your culture, your country, your religion can write someone like you... just shut up. Whine somewhere else.

This reminds me of the time Alexie Sherman threw a fit on public radio about the middle-class journalist who wrote On the Rez, a semi-anthropological work about the author's friendship with a full-blooded Pine Ridge resident. Sherman just went OFF about how the author was stealing Sherman's culture, and taking advantage of it, and twisting it to his own ends, and how the author could NEVER grok the depth and richness of Sherman's culture. Blah, blah, blah.

A reviewer down in Louisiana had a come back to that. He pointed out that Sherman used Robert Johnson in Reservation Blues, where Johnson's magical guitar ends up owned by Thomas Builds-the-Fire. On behalf of black Southern men everywhere, the reviewer wrote, he'd like to complain that Sherman needs to stop commandeering the reviewer's culture, and rewrite his book to remove all references to Robert Johnson -- who, as we all know, was NOT a full-blooded Native American but an itinerate if gifted musician, and a black Southern man, as well. If Sherman's going to complain about someone else lifting his culture's stories wholecloth, he needs to stop doing it himself.

So, yeah, if you wanna argue only gay men can write gay men, go ahead. But what are you gonna do? Leave out all heterosexual men in your story? Have absolutely no women in your story, lesbian, straight, or otherwise? Oh, please.

So...shut up already. And get back to writing, and stop giving a flying fuck about whether or not your credentials -- or anyone else's, for that matter -- fit in with the subject matter. If you write a good book, I really won't frickin' care. If it's a good book, I should never see you but for a few moments at the end, when I say: this author really grokked How It Is. If you can't do that, you suck, and no amount of personal experience is gonna save your ass, and no amount is gonna make me read past the first paragraph.

And in case you're wondering, this goes just as much for me, too. If we can't write, we might as well go back to washing dishes and refilling coffee cups.

Comments

[chelidon.livejournal.com]

Nice rant. Well said.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I feel MUCH better now.

[slobbit.livejournal.com]

and there are some writers who cannot write realistic characters at all . . .

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

And they suck, overall. We can only hope they learn, get better, and lessen the general suckage.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I really do think that the problem's not, 'this character isn't believable as a (wo)man!' but rather 'this character isn't believable as a person!'

I really do.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Yep, good point.

[aulus-poliutos.livejournal.com]

Lol, judging from what I write, I must be a gay or bi man who loves to torture people and who suffers from a post war trauma.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Hey! Unless you've personally experienced a post-war trauma, you are commandeering the experiences of all former soldiers! Blasphemy!

Naturally, I add: Keep it up!

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

> Naturally, I add: Keep it up!

So to speak.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

::snerk!::

(I achieved something a bit like fame on a writing mailing list once by responding to a what-what-you-know post with a short list of, "So writer X must be Y," that wound up with: "And Connie Willis is dead.")

[aulus-poliutos.livejournal.com]

Actually, I read the Iraq blogs to which Holly links - not that I like most of the stuff, but it helps me to understand some of my characters, esp. Horatius. I've also read some stuff about Vietnam, and of course, I know the stories from my grandfather.

There's someone in FM chat who helps me with the gay stuff, though we probably have to take it out of chat, despite the fun eveyone else has listening to us. :)

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Yep. Good research trumps many flaws, and first-person interviews are a damn good thing. I've had some of my Tetsu scenes vetted, and have yet to get a "no gay guy I know would do that," but he's also a tough one since it's not like I've found a Japanese gay guy -- and even at that, who's to say one ___ ____ person necessarily speaks for all ___ ___ people? As long as the character is consistent, and the reader can extrapolate from some kind of common experience... that's what seems to make a character believable, in my experience/opinion.

Besides, I'd never ignore an excuse for more research. Weeeee.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this is response to what I think it's in response to (the Big Gay Fantasy kerfluffle?).

But if it is, I just wanted to say, I'm really glad that I'm not the only one who sees this implicitly buried in the question.

I don't know if it's really there. But I can't seem to stop seeing it and it's nice to think I'm not nuts, at least for that particular reason. *g*

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

It's not just buried in the question, it's screaming at the top of its lungs.

And while I'm amused by some women's versions of gay men -- which, when written for a predominantly female (or just a romantically-inclined audience of both genders) tends to be, well, highly romanticized... that does NOT mean that "women cannot write a believeable ___ character" as a blanket statement. You could say, "when writing highly romanticized characters, regardless of gender or orientation, authors of both genders tend to swing away from realism and into romance and therefore unbelievability" but that's not the same thing as saying they just can't write the characters at ALL and should therefore NOT EVEN BOTHER.

Where's the damn Big Lesbian Fantasy kerfluffle, for crying out loud?

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I think the Big Lesbian kerfluffle is in that thread a little bit, actually. A few comments here and there.

I say 'buried' because I don't think that women-shouldn't-write-male-characters is what the folks having the discussion are trying to say. I don't think it's what they're trying to ask. But...my comment on the subject is here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/oracne/632893.html?thread=2057533#t2057533

It's tough. I think "why aren't more X writing Y?" is a valid question, and maybe an interesting one. I just don't like the things that tend to get implied along with it. I don't think it's the question that's bothering me, exactly, on these last few go-rounds.

But the sense bubbling along through some of this talk that these women who are writing gay men are doing something _wrong,_ are _trespassing,_ that this is something that only gay _men_ can do right, or should get to do at all--well, you've said it all above.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

But the sense bubbling along through some of this talk that these women who are writing gay men are doing something _wrong,_ are _trespassing,_ that this is something that only gay _men_ can do right, or should get to do at all--well, you've said it all above.

Yep, and more than the valid question you pointed out, it's the OMG HOW DARE YOU attitude that I do find offensive -- and that goes for Alexie Sherman ranting about non-Indians writing about the rez, as much as men ranting about women trying to write M/M relationships.

[slobbit.livejournal.com]

Where's the damn Big Lesbian Fantasy kerfluffle, for crying out loud?

Yoshi says he'll head that one up.

*Yoshi nods firmly, and picks up a brush*

"Where do I start?"

[mroctober.livejournal.com]

Gah. I am sorry that I seem to have offended you by posing the whole discussion. That was honestly never my intention. Again, my apologies.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

No, because the original preface wasn't offensive. As Buy points out above, it *is* a valid question to ask, "why aren't more ___ writing" (and really, writing of any kind). We've asked that question before, whether it be 'why aren't more women writing' and 'why aren't more people of color getting published' and this time the question is 'why aren't more gay men getting published' (with the underlying element that their stories are of clear interest to a segment of the population, so one might hope, if perhaps assume, that first-hand experience might lend more insight, where a writer without that experience would have to stretch further.

But the idea that "all ____ cannot write outside their background" IS offensive, even if it's not intended as such. We don't always see the hidden messages in our questions, and I know that well enough myself.

Then again, I've also pretty much had the very bad, no-good, all-around day from hell. I think I just needed a chance to stomp around, and now I feel better.

Y'know, if you're working at a bookstore now, when are you going to start doing book reviews on our LJ and recommend the latest works?

[mroctober.livejournal.com]

I agree that the notion a writer cannot write outside their background is a ridiculous one. Otherwise my favorite books shelf would be nearly empty.


I would love to do reviews! I just have so much on my plate... I am finally finally trying to finish up all the SO FEY stuff by this weekend and I am having to deal with another publisher's demands. Yeah, this is good stress but still, I'm behind and I hate it because other people are inconvenienced because of it.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Then at least do what Mat does, and list books you're currently reading. Like mentioning the book about Mormon same-sex relationships, and you didn't even post the title at the same time! Hmph. Help us non-bookstore-people out, here.

Hey, better to deal with a pesky publisher's demands than no publisher at ALL.

[mroctober.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's because I was lazy and put the book on the shelf and remarked about it without knowing the exact title.

[sevun.livejournal.com]

Just to add a side note, the very first piece of writing, from the beginning of state formation, that we have so far is from a woman. Enheduanna was a priestess in Sumer who wrote hymns and poetry as early as 2300bc. (http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/gods/ladies/ladyenheduanna.html )
The debate of whether there should be terms of women and male writers has been a relatively recent one, I just hope we don't start adding gay/straight/bi writers to that mix. Writing is an art, either you can create or you can't. The artist shouldn't play the major role, the artwork should hold the significance.
Just my two cents on the matter.
p.s Bravo on the rant.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

And I think the whole male/female thing is undermined by writers like Georges Sand, or Andre Norton, who published successfully as men. And I know there are men who've published as women, and plenty of each who've done first initial, last name, and left it ambiguous.

The artist shouldn't play the major role, the artwork should hold the significance.

Damn you, summing up my entire rant in one concise sentence! I want that skill!

ffffttt.

[sevun.livejournal.com]

Ahh but the rant is so much sweeter. Conciseness lacks virility. Wanna trade for a bit? ;)

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Hell yeah. I'd love to be far more concise; maybe this is why I edit obsessively...

[slobbit.livejournal.com]

Yes? Published as men? How about genderless?

*cough* S. Greer.

*raises eyebrow*

;-)

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

[achiasa.livejournal.com]

What you said. So very totally. I think maybe that might be why so many snobby critics insist that all fantasy sucks, actually, because of course it's impossible to write about something that one doesn't have 100% direct experience of. *rolleyes* Have they never heard of imagination? I may not be a man, but I know how to have a bloody conversation with one, for goodness' sake.

Although I am a little confused by Hell, until I'd read Kim, I thought Rudyard Kipling had to be a Gloucestor man, born and bred on the big blue water. Because afaik (and if I weren't slightly tipsy right now I could be, y'know, definite) Gloucester and Gloucestershire are totally landlocked. ?? What am I missing?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Brit!

Gloucester is the port just north of Boston, in Massachusetts. For nearly a century it was a massive fishing (and some whaling) village, until the trawlers moved in and the fleets pretty much shut down, one by one, unable to compete. Kipling spent a year or so living in Gloucester and talking to old sailors -- already a dying art by then -- and wrote Captains Courageous based on what he learned. And he nails it, completely; I've read contemporary reviews of sailors who were stunned to find out Kipling had never even hoisted a sail, let alone caught a fish.

[slobbit.livejournal.com]

And suffice it to say I've never whacked anybody with a shakujo or done a single thing with any male appendages.

Damn! So many things to say on this thread -- absolutely no time!

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Yah, but you've at least SEEN male appendages up close and personal, right? That's at least a step up from 16 yr old virgins trying to write not one guy, but two, and plastering their wacked impression of sex all over the net in bad fanfiction. Sometimes, it really, truly burns.

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

> or done a single thing with any male appendages

That's not what I heard. };->

[meritjubet.livejournal.com]

I've heard this being ranted before. Still rather silly and stupid isn't it? That it just keep on getting brought up. Well I guess another waves of people joining the net.

I generally write both POVs of both sexes, I liked it mixed but it is really up the author/

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I recall someone did a short poll on a writer's board, about which POVs vs. gender vs. age, and the majority ended up being "write both genders in POV, but characters usually w/in 10 yrs +/- author's age." Apparently the character's age was slightly more of an issue for most of the writers, compared to the character's gender.

[l-clausewitz.livejournal.com]

Well, there are "special cases" like Tolkien who admitted that he couldn't write feminine female characters, and as a result the only female character portrayed in detail in the fictional works published during his lifetime was the warrior maiden Eowyn. Most literary critics have noticed that this particular statement is largely undermined by the fact that he wrote Galadriel so well (better than he did Eowyn, in my opinion) and she was nothing if not feminine.

*cough* A very ineffective piece of understatement. *cough*

Considering the proofs and counter-proofs obtained form your actual writing experience, I believe you should ignore anyone who says that the same person could not have written both Spark and Tetsu.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

It's not so much that someone wouldn't believe I wrote both Spark and Tetsu, but that someone might complain one (or both) isn't believeable. And really, I expect at some point one could also grumble that I can't write Tetsu not for his sexuality but because how could I, an American, grok what it's like to be Japanese, let alone Japanese and male?

But you're right; often what writers think is believable is a little different from what readers think. We don't always give ourselves a great deal of credit, sometimes.

[maldoror-gw.livejournal.com]

We need a good psychic medium please. We need to get into contact with Oscar Wilde and tell him his entire body of work is rubbish because he didn't write exclusively about highly-educated gay or bisexual white men with a talent for sarcasm.

Good rant, m'dear, I'm just sorry this was ever needed. Not just from the writer point of view. From the human point of view. Saying 'only a X can write X well' means that all X (gay, lesbian, Native Americans, blacks, women, men etc) must be more similar to other Xs than to any other non-Xs. Practically homogeneous.

That kind of thinking scares the shit out of me.

It takes me a considerably larger effort of the imagination to get into the head of certain women I know, than it takes me to understand some gay or Arabic friends of mine.

That's like saying that, because I'm a straight, 35-year-old white woman, I can get into the head, understand and write about...oh, I donno...Ann Coulter...

...May I please have a gender, sexual orientation or color-swap, please? Oscar Wilde, mate, can I join your club?


PS: I took your quiz.
1) Fangirl (I could be wrong)
2)...I had to read that one twice before I thought hey, waitaminute ^__^;
3) Male.
4) Female.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Well, two of those were a gimme for you, bebe. But you still got one wrong. *snerk*

Which proves my point, almost as much as the fact that no one else has seen reason to answer -- because really, it's beside the point. (Although if I'd thought of it, I would've used a snippet from Pellaz, since her stuff has the lovely coarse edge that makes me think GUY every single time.)

Saying 'only a X can write X well' means that all X (gay, lesbian, Native Americans, blacks, women, men etc) must be more similar to other Xs than to any other non-Xs. Practically homogeneous.

Nail, hammer, bang.

[maldoror-gw.livejournal.com]

But you still got one wrong.
You have no idea how happy I am to hear that ^_^ As you say, it proves the point. Let's hear it for our individuality, and for the poets who can breach our islands and connect us, whoever and whatever we are.

[ex-saraswath377.livejournal.com]

Well said.

This reminds me of how in many of my CW classes, they say "write from your own experience" and yet if (generalization, ignoring any perfection of traits) you write a "you" into a story, it becomes a Mary Sue. I've also heard in other writing forums to move as far away from yourself as possible in characterization. And yet you can write about almost virtually your experiences as fiction and have it be a best seller. (See The Bell Jar and numerous others.)

So, like with the gender argument, it seems to more come down to just how well you can write in general. I think, at a certain point, who you are and what you are doesn't matter as long as you pull off what you're writing effectively. With research, characterization, or whatever tools you need.

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

Just don't write like this.