McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Writing from a different gender perspective
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: KarlTenBrew on November 19, 2009, 10:38:20 PM ---This. Very-very much this. Then I go back and first ask myself about any obvious discrepancies (you know: obvious out-of-character-act is obvious type stuff). Then I get my mother and sister (or available willing female reader) to read the specific passage relating her words and actions, and ask the simple question: "Do you know anyone like this? If so, are they all or overwhelmingly women?"
--- End quote ---
Which is perfectly good if you want to write a plausible contemporary Western female character. And of much more limited use for a medieval nun or a seventeenth-century Japanese noble, let alone the social context of a different world altogether.
KarlTenBrew:
--- Quote from: neurovore on November 19, 2009, 11:21:32 PM ---Which is perfectly good if you want to write a plausible contemporary Western female character. And of much more limited use for a medieval nun or a seventeenth-century Japanese noble, let alone the social context of a different world altogether.
--- End quote ---
Not so. I didn't ask if it was them, or their circle of friends. I asked about anyone they knew. Having lived across the nation (in both senses), having family across the nation (again, both senses), and with my sister being particularly exposed to foreign cultures in her course of study, it gives me a very wide range of PoV analysis. It also lets me get a grip on whether the character is how I want them and not only analyze them as a person, but analyze them as a person from their culture and specific experiences.
Is it perfect? No. But I read enough (fiction and non) that at the very least, I'd have to ask a contemporary of the culture you're asking about to find breaks in plausibility. Speaking of which, let me know how I can contact any you find. Even without a far-ranging sister, it's not all that hard to find someone who has been outside of your community this millenium, and develop a web of potential contacts and questions.
Additionally: people have not changed as much as we like to think. The same things motivate and inspire us as they have for thousands of years. Seventeenth century nun? From a noble house, an orphan, someone who was simply an extra mouth to feed? How attractive is she, and how interested in men? How ambitious? What is her driving goal [most pious, hardest worker, etc.]? Answering these questions fills in much of the character. Japanese noble? Princess, eldest woman of a clan, trophy wife, respected wife? Again, asking about their specific circumstances and their hopes and dreams is the core of method acting, not stereotypes.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: KarlTenBrew on November 19, 2009, 11:56:33 PM ---Is it perfect? No. But I read enough (fiction and non) that at the very least, I'd have to ask a contemporary of the culture you're asking about to find breaks in plausibility. Speaking of which, let me know how I can contact any you find.
--- End quote ---
Read the documents they leave.
--- Quote ---Additionally: people have not changed as much as we like to think.
--- End quote ---
I disagree here, entirely.
I mean, I wince every time I see an American author writing about Europe today who doesn't understand that a hundred miles is a long distance and a hundred years is a short time,
and that's just a contemporary difference but it peremeates almost everything.
--- Quote --- Again, asking about their specific circumstances and their hopes and dreams is the core of method acting, not stereotypes.
--- End quote ---
Only so long as one gets out of using contemporary axioms to guide that, at which an awful lot of people fail badly.
nerd1:
--- Quote from: DragonFire on October 15, 2009, 01:15:29 AM ---
I don't consider them strong women....I consider them sad stereotypes.
--- End quote ---
Not to reanimate a WoT thread, but just to put my 2 cents in. I always found the WoT to have a nice interplay between the male and female characters, that reminded me of my grandparents and all of their sagely and gently condescending (on the other genders) advice.
I actually hated most of the female characters POVs for a number of the books, but thought that this was merely a result of being in the protagonist's POV so often (and the female characters all attempt to "fix" or "better" him so often).
The one exception was the Tuon character, whom I thought was intersting and smartly written. This character was one of the few that was strong and focused, and I felt that the character already knew her place in that world, and thus had focus and strength.
In the book just released (The Gathering Storm), I actually enjoyed the Egwene POV a lot.... this same clarity of the pervious Tuon POV came through....and though it was written by Sanderson, RJ's wife remained the main editor, and (RJ's words) driving force. This was a vast improvement on the previous books, where the female POVs all were aimed at showing women tricking (or pulling, or kicking, or convincing) the male characters to the right thing. Maybe it was just a matter of timing, that the main female characters were not fully fleshed out until more towards the end...when their role in that world was more clear to them (see the Matt character for the same issues/resolution)
KarlTenBrew:
--- Quote from: neurovore on November 20, 2009, 04:31:04 PM ---I disagree here, entirely.
I mean, I wince every time I see an American author writing about Europe today who doesn't understand that a hundred miles is a long distance and a hundred years is a short time,
and that's just a contemporary difference but it peremeates almost everything.
Only so long as one gets out of using contemporary axioms to guide that, at which an awful lot of people fail badly.
--- End quote ---
Because a lot of people fail badly at thinking things through all the way, which is certainly not a new trait. It's just as cringe worthy to see a British or Japanese writer who's never left the country talk about travel in America. A good writer in this sense either avoids what this kind of dichotomy, talks extensively with an expert / researches, or has a co-writer editor capable of handling such things. This is indicative of how people don't change, not how they do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version