ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: Lizard King on October 11, 2007, 09:19:17 PM
-
One of the reasons I love Dresden series is this:
It's not about a tough, angst ridden, female character who struggles with being comfortable with who she is etc. etc. etc.
Has anyone else noticed, and or been frustrated with, this trend in the genre? Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series is good. But it is tiresome in it's sameness. Lillith St. Crow and her "Devil's Right Hand" series is okay, but it's character Dante Valentine is a Xerox of Anita Blake from Hamilton's books. Kelly Armstrong is too similar as well. In fact, Charlaine Harris is the most palatable of the group, but it's still more of the same.
So I love the Dresden series, and want more like it. Jim can't right them quickly enough for me. Can anyone make a recommendation for me? Harry Dresden and John Constantine are my favorite characters of this type, and I just want more.
-
Try the Angel TV series.
-
Well, I feel kind of silly now. I just found a huge section for just this topic under the Media section.
So, I'll start perusing that.
-
One series I like about a female character is Patricia Briggs' Mercedes Thompson series. Mercy (the main character) is very down-to-earth. There's a little bit of angst, but both author and character handle it quite well. It's not overdone either. She's also tough but not ridiculesly so. I'm rather fond of the series.
~She-Wolf
-
One series I like about a female character is Patricia Briggs' Mercedes Thompson series. Mercy (the main character) is very down-to-earth. There's a little bit of angst, but both author and character handle it quite well. It's not overdone either. She's also tough but not ridiculesly so. I'm rather fond of the series.
~She-Wolf
That's cool. Obviously their has to be some internal conflict to have any depth to it. As long as the character doesn't become all "emo" about it. Male or female isn't really the issue. I just want to be able to relate.
Thanks for the advice.
-
Male or female isn't really the issue. I just want to be able to relate.
Thanks for the advice.
actually I have to admit a major factor that got me into Dresden was the fact that he's male.
Don't get me wrong or take me for a sexist. Even as a hip, modern, sensitive 21st century guy, there's a lot of things in books with a female lead I just have to take the authors word on.
With Dresden it's like "he's noticing a womans chest! I do that!!"
-
actually I have to admit a major factor that got me into Dresden was the fact that he's male.
Don't get me wrong or take me for a sexist. Even as a hip, modern, sensitive 21st century guy, there's a lot of things in books with a female lead I just have to take the authors word on.
With Dresden it's like "he's noticing a womans chest! I do that!!"
Well, they say "write what you know". Sometimes it's nice to read what you know, no doubt!
-
"
It's not about a tough, angst ridden, female character who struggles with being comfortable with who she is etc. etc. etc. ""
That can only be applied to the first Kelley Armstrong book.
But I am getting a bit sick of the whole genre. No longer is it just vampires that are overdone, now it is everything that is overdone, now that the whole genre has become the latest cheap romance novel fad (Looking over the books in the supermarket, I can hardly believe it), and TV fad.
I liked this genre because it was different, inventive, and new. I never knew quite what to expect. I wonder if, when the genre was a bit less popular, only the better novels tended to get published, and that is the difference. Now it's all the same rote stuff with a thin layer of rote urban fantasy on top.
-
"
It's not about a tough, angst ridden, female character who struggles with being comfortable with who she is etc. etc. etc. ""
That can only be applied to the first Kelley Armstrong book.
Not really. It's worst in the first one, but there's a lot of crap in Dime Store magic, too.
She really manages to hit her stride in 'Industrial Magic' and it's toned down a lot since then.
I mean, there's almost a whole paragraph in DSM where Paige goes on about different fabrics and why she likes them.
But I am getting a bit sick of the whole genre. No longer is it just vampires that are overdone, now it is everything that is overdone, now that the whole genre has become the latest cheap romance novel fad (Looking over the books in the supermarket, I can hardly believe it), and TV fad.
Partially because, and this sounds like a prick thing to say, but a lot of romance writers have added supernatural elements into their books, and those are now billed as 'urban fantasy'.
Also, I find female writers amp up the relationships, and angst, and male writers don't.
More women than men write fantasy , and so, because it's modern day, I believe, a lot of them become psuedo romances. LEt's face it, there's a lot about clothes and guys and all that sort of stuff in Kelley Armstrong, Rachel Caine, Kim Harrison, LKH. A lot fo time, the female lead worries about her love life, the long, lavish descriptions of clothes, the painstaking description of just how hot every male char is, and very rarely any ugly ones, and so on.
WHereas in DF, or if you've read Marc Del Franco's Unshapely things, or Kelly McCollugh's Webmage, there is more emphasis on plot, more interpersonal relationships, and, (and this will sound sexist) more inclination to have the main char look stupid.
I perosnally believe this makes them look and feel more 3d and real.
Does anyone think Elena, Paige, or Jo-anne Baldwin are as 3d as Harry?
I don't.
I liked this genre because it was different, inventive, and new. I never knew quite what to expect. I wonder if, when the genre was a bit less popular, only the better novels tended to get published, and that is the difference. Now it's all the same rote stuff with a thin layer of rote urban fantasy on top.
There is still new and inventive stuff out there, you just need to try and avoid the romance masquarading as urban fantasy.
-
I picked up a Kim Harrison book the other day, after hearing that it was sort of like the Dresden Files. Well it is, sort of. The plot is advancing sort of slowly and I guess it doesn't help that I managed to pick up the 4th book in the series and not say the 1st.
Anyway it just doesn't seem to read as fast, as for Rachel Morgan being 3d, I haven't read enough to be sure, but she is pretty clumsy, and has made several mistakes already by saying the wrong thing a la Dresden and doesn't epict herself as extremely intelligent. The thing is it isn't as compelling as DF is, it isn't like I'm struggling through it, I'm just don't get the can't put this book down feeling like I get from DF, ASoIaF, SoT, Codex Alera.
Still it is a good read, just not great IMHO.
-
I must strongly disagree. Very strongly. Your comments about cliched interests of women might be true if we were talking about what I think of as "bimbo urban fantasy" - ala undead and unwed, the sookie stackhouse books anymore, etc, but it can hardly be said of Kelley Armstrong or Rachel Kaine's books (i'm not going to defend Kim Harrison nor LKH because they're is a vibe they share and I dislike both of their series). The only one I can think to even slightly apply it to is the most recent Kelley Armstrong book- but let's face it, Jaime is superficially a bimbo.
K.A.'s books seem much more realistic to me, with much more real characters. I love dresden to death, but let's face it, he... fits a mold, in a sense. He's a recognizable character. There aren't a ton of psychological layers there, but don't tell me he doesn't wallow in angst. And to a certain extent, it's necessary, because a good story will have drama and tension, and the characters will have feelings about things, otherwise it is quite, quite boring.
I found webmage quite dull. I couldn't bring myself to care about the main character.
More emphasis on plot and interpersonal relationships?
Please. This is ridiculous to the extreme. men and women do not have such disparate writing styles that you can make such claims.
Also, I find female writers amp up the relationships, and angst, and male writers don't.
More women than men write fantasy , and so, because it's modern day, I believe, a lot of them become psuedo romances. LEt's face it, there's a lot about clothes and guys and all that sort of stuff in Kelley Armstrong, Rachel Caine, Kim Harrison, LKH. A lot fo time, the female lead worries about her love life, the long, lavish descriptions of clothes, the painstaking description of just how hot every male char is, and very rarely any ugly ones, and so on.
WHereas in DF, or if you've read Marc Del Franco's Unshapely things, or Kelly McCollugh's Webmage, there is more emphasis on plot, more interpersonal relationships, and, (and this will sound sexist) more inclination to have the main char look stupid.
I perosnally believe this makes them look and feel more 3d and real.
Does anyone think Elena, Paige, or Jo-anne Baldwin are as 3d as Harry?
I don't.There is still new and inventive stuff out there, you just need to try and avoid the romance masquarading as urban fantasy.
-
Series that I really liked were The Inheritence Trilogy (3rd book not out yet) and The Chronicles of Amber. Not really female based or anything, but they're a good series.
-
I must strongly disagree. Very strongly. Your comments about cliched interests of women might be true if we were talking about what I think of as "bimbo urban fantasy" - ala undead and unwed, the sookie stackhouse books anymore, etc, but it can hardly be said of Kelley Armstrong or Rachel Kaine's books (i'm not going to defend Kim Harrison nor LKH because they're is a vibe they share and I dislike both of their series). The only one I can think to even slightly apply it to is the most recent Kelley Armstrong book- but let's face it, Jaime is superficially a bimbo.
I agree with your concept of "Bimbo Urban Fantasy", having read Undead and Unwed (as well as Undead and Unemplyed, Undead and Unappreciated, and Undead and Unreturnable). I actually enjoyed MaryJanice Davidsons works because they were so gloriously Shallow in a genre that naturally carries a certain level of depth.
K.A.'s books seem much more realistic to me, with much more real characters. I love dresden to death, but let's face it, he... fits a mold, in a sense. He's a recognizable character. There aren't a ton of psychological layers there, but don't tell me he doesn't wallow in angst. And to a certain extent, it's necessary, because a good story will have drama and tension, and the characters will have feelings about things, otherwise it is quite, quite boring.
Dresden has some of the traits commonplace in the genre for sure. The whole "I have access to a lot of power, but I don't want it" is a pretty average flavor to books.
Please. This is ridiculous to the extreme. men and women do not have such disparate writing styles that you can make such claims.
I agree fully, but we're not talking about the writing style, more of the main characters P.O.V. in the world.
There isn't a clear-cut line between male and female leads, Unless of course you're comparing Undead and Unwed and, say... Gil's all Fright Diner by A. Lee Martinez.
-
I found the first few amusing, but as soon it seemed that I saw the bimbo genre (and more than just urban fantasy) everywhere, the more I tired of it.
I was using 'writing style' in a more full sense, applying it to the kinds of stories told, the types of characters, the descriptions, etc.
There have been many times I have been somewhat surprised to realize that an author was male or female, after reading a book of theirs. Not usually because the book gave me an impression of a gender...but rather the opposite, that the book did nothing to remind me of gender, it just hit upon humanity so perfectly that I forgot about shoving people into categories, and thus the reveal of the author's gender forced me to remember all the societal constructions that go along with it.
I agree with your concept of "Bimbo Urban Fantasy", having read Undead and Unwed (as well as Undead and Unemplyed, Undead and Unappreciated, and Undead and Unreturnable). I actually enjoyed MaryJanice Davidsons works because they were so gloriously Shallow in a genre that naturally carries a certain level of depth.
Dresden has some of the traits commonplace in the genre for sure. The whole "I have access to a lot of power, but I don't want it" is a pretty average flavor to books.
I agree fully, but we're not talking about the writing style, more of the main characters P.O.V. in the world.
There isn't a clear-cut line between male and female leads, Unless of course you're comparing Undead and Unwed and, say... Gil's all Fright Diner by A. Lee Martinez.
-
I found the first few amusing, but as soon it seemed that I saw the bimbo genre (and more than just urban fantasy) everywhere, the more I tired of it.
I was using 'writing style' in a more full sense, applying it to the kinds of stories told, the types of characters, the descriptions, etc.
There have been many times I have been somewhat surprised to realize that an author was male or female, after reading a book of theirs. Not usually because the book gave me an impression of a gender...but rather the opposite, that the book did nothing to remind me of gender, it just hit upon humanity so perfectly that I forgot about shoving people into categories, and thus the reveal of the author's gender forced me to remember all the societal constructions that go along with it.
Are we discussing the gender of the author, or the gender of the authors creations? In books written in first person it's a real talent to avoid a gender Bias and write more than so many pages, eventually standard grammar or social practices will reveal it.
I honestly can't think of the last book I've read where the characters gender became a non-point in light of the greater story, I don't think I ever consider the characters' gender to be an issue unless it's brought up within the book (IE the "tough female" character being picked on by a bunch of big macho-male types because they think of her as weak).
As for the authors gender... If I like the story they could be a eunich from Saturn for all I care.
-
I feel like my whole intitial point has been gradually skewed. I don't dislike female leads, or female authors. (I happen to love Patricia Cornwell and her character, Kay Scarpetta.)
What I hate is the SAMENESS of the genre as a whole. I want more characters like Jim's, whether it's male or female lead. What I want is a lead character with depth and, well, 3D, like Lightsabre said. For instance, if Murphy were the lead in DF, she would have to be balanced and fleshed out a LOT for me to follow it.
I want some UNIQUENESS in this genre. I'm being forced to search elsewhere to find it, and to wait like a twitching fiend for the next DF book. (if you like unique leads, try Darkly Dreaming Dexter, by Jeff Lindsay. Insanely awesome book)
-
Are we discussing the gender of the author, or the gender of the authors creations? In books written in first person it's a real talent to avoid a gender Bias and write more than so many pages, eventually standard grammar or social practices will reveal it.
I was discussing author gender. Despite offending a few people (and finding novium's reply damn offensive), I stick to what I said.
Female authors, male or female lead characters, tend to emphasise romantic relationships and such, in their stories. That's fine. I LIKE The Otherworld series, I'm not so keen on Weather Warden, but that's me. I LOVED the first 9 LKH books, and I quite enjoy the Rachel Morgan books by Kim Harrison.
But I can look at all 4 of those series's, and find similarities in the content.
DOes this mean that female authors are WORSE?? Of course not. DOes it mean their work is different to male authors? Yes.
DOes it happen every time? no.
But look at Nightlife by Rob Thurman. I was confused when I read that, because it read, to me, like a female author, but I just assumed Rob was short for Robert. When I found out Rob Thurman was a woman, it made a lot more sense.
Does it mean it was an inferior book? no way in hell.
I honestly can't think of the last book I've read where the characters gender became a non-point in light of the greater story, I don't think I ever consider the characters' gender to be an issue unless it's brought up within the book (IE the "tough female" character being picked on by a bunch of big macho-male types because they think of her as weak).
Character gender is irrelevant to a good plot, vital to good characterisation.
The only thing I'm sick of is there seems to always be the obligatory 'your a woman, you can't do what us men do'.....woman proves she can, scene.
It's really boring.
As for the authors gender... If I like the story they could be a eunich from Saturn for all I care.
I was never commenting men wrote BETTER books. I was telling Lizard king my opinion on what he was talking about.
-
I appreciate the responses on this thread. I was not sure what kind of reaction it would get.
I have to agree with Lightsabre in what he's said regarding the way male and female authors approach their novels. It doesn't take away from their skill or talent. It all just depends on what the READER wants.
I'm going to say again, though, that what bugs me is how similar so many of the books in the genre are. I go from LKH to Armstrong, to Harrison, and I feel like I just flipped channels back and forth between soap operas.
And I don't happen to like soap operas.
-
I think that's the reason why JB is really the only author of the genre that I'll spend money on without hesitation: i know I'll get something unique.
Who else but Dresden does things like send pizza to the middle of nowhere once a week as a retainer for faerie services? Or references Wile E. Coyote during a street fight?
I tried reading the Anita Blake novels, and just got bogged down feeling that I'd read it/seen it before ala Angel/Buffy. It's all about the same angsty, predictable bada**es doing the same sorts of things. Sexy vampires and detective agencies, yada yada. It's gotten to the point that, unless I get wind of something really original, I just don't bother.
Anybody else in that sort of rut?
-
I appreciate the responses on this thread. I was not sure what kind of reaction it would get.
I have to agree with Lightsabre in what he's said regarding the way male and female authors approach their novels. It doesn't take away from their skill or talent. It all just depends on what the READER wants.
I'm going to say again, though, that what bugs me is how similar so many of the books in the genre are. I go from LKH to Armstrong, to Harrison, and I feel like I just flipped channels back and forth between soap operas.
And I don't happen to like soap operas.
I feel much the same way. Doesn't mean I don't like them, or that their skill is lower than any other author.
Simply that I'm not as into the things their books focus on.
Like poetry, an opinion on a novel is very personal.
As novium said in an apparent rebuttal to me, he/she didn't like Webmage, couldn't get into it. I damn near skipped work so I could finish it.
We;re all different. We like different things.
-
I think that's the reason why JB is really the only author of the genre that I'll spend money on without hesitation: i know I'll get something unique.
Who else but Dresden does things like send pizza to the middle of nowhere once a week as a retainer for faerie services? Or references Wile E. Coyote during a street fight?
I tried reading the Anita Blake novels, and just got bogged down feeling that I'd read it/seen it before ala Angel/Buffy. It's all about the same angsty, predictable bada**es doing the same sorts of things. Sexy vampires and detective agencies, yada yada. It's gotten to the point that, unless I get wind of something really original, I just don't bother.
Anybody else in that sort of rut?
Yup
-
I think that's the reason why JB is really the only author of the genre that I'll spend money on without hesitation: i know I'll get something unique.
Who else but Dresden does things like send pizza to the middle of nowhere once a week as a retainer for faerie services? Or references Wile E. Coyote during a street fight?
I tried reading the Anita Blake novels, and just got bogged down feeling that I'd read it/seen it before ala Angel/Buffy. It's all about the same angsty, predictable bada**es doing the same sorts of things. Sexy vampires and detective agencies, yada yada. It's gotten to the point that, unless I get wind of something really original, I just don't bother.
Anybody else in that sort of rut?
Also the Roadrunner thing when he was fighting Aroura (My spelling sucks).
-
Also the Roadrunner thing when he was fighting Aroura (My spelling sucks).
Exactly! Who else can say "Meep Meep" to a faerie queen and get away with it?
Although my favorite line is still "For my next trick, anvils!"
That really needs to be an icon. ;D
-
Female authors, male or female lead characters, tend to emphasise romantic relationships and such, in their stories.
That may well be true in the subgenre of dark urban fantasy - and how much of that is a combination of what that genre is perceived as being about by publishers, and what sort of people are drawn to that perception, is a different question - but it's way excessive as a generalisation even in SF/Fantasy as a whole. Or at least, the thought of Sarah Monette or C.J. Cherryh, or even Lois Bujold, being perceived as emphasising romantic relationships and such just makes me laugh.
-
In books written in first person it's a real talent to avoid a gender Bias and write more than so many pages, eventually standard grammar or social practices will reveal it.
I disagree, because to my mind it's trivially easy. I've both read plenty and written a fair bit that has been entirely opaque to other readers - this is not the only location where I'm not out about my gender. Mind you, I do wirte a fair number of angels, AIs, and non-gendered aliens. Standard grammer or social practices in the society you're used to are easy to avoid if you write in a different setting, historical or fictional.
-
Who else but Dresden does things like send pizza to the middle of nowhere once a week as a retainer for faerie services? Or references Wile E. Coyote during a street fight?
Felix Castor ? Bob Howard ?
[ "I like rhetorical questions. I usually get the answers right." ]
-
Felix Castor ? Bob Howard ?
What's your point?
The reason I'm asking, is it seems like you are simply trying to be argumentative. And maybe a bit obnoxious.
-
That may well be true in the subgenre of dark urban fantasy - and how much of that is a combination of what that genre is perceived as being about by publishers, and what sort of people are drawn to that perception, is a different question - but it's way excessive as a generalisation even in SF/Fantasy as a whole. Or at least, the thought of Sarah Monette or C.J. Cherryh, or even Lois Bujold, being perceived as emphasising romantic relationships and such just makes me laugh.
LAugh away. I've not read anything by those authors, nor am I aware of any urban fantasy they've written. I do stress not ALL authors fit this mold, but it seems to me that most do.
MAybe you could stop being so defensive and borderline rude and actually discuss why you think that is??
ANd I never, ever stated it was across SF/F as a whole, I specifically stated URBAN FANTASY, as this is what the thread is about.
I can tell you of one female author that has the balance right. Mercedes Lackey. She has a decent balance between romance and action, but there is still more romance in her stuff than, say, DF, or the Felix Castor books.
-
What's your point?
The reason I'm asking, is it seems like you are simply trying to be argumentative. And maybe a bit obnoxious.
My point here, fwiw, is that, fond of the Dresden Files as I am, they are not a unique example of urban fantasy with a male protagonist who has the virtue of a snarky sense of humour, and that this is probably worth letting people know about in this context, as anyone who is looking at the Dresden Files as unique in this way may be unaware of other authors and characters out there whom they would find enjoyable. I'm sorry you find this problematic; it seemd a positive thing to me.
-
LAugh away. I've not read anything by those authors, nor am I aware of any urban fantasy they've written.
Your statement "Female authors, male or female lead characters, tend to emphasise romantic relationships and such, in their stories" did not read to me as limited to this particular subset of SF/fantasy. My apologies if that was a misreading.
MAybe you could stop being so defensive and borderline rude and actually discuss why you think that is??
The first half of the post of mine you were just replying to was intended as an answer to that, but to expand on that, as it clearly wasn't clear enough:
There is a perception of a certain kind of urban fantasies with female protagonists - paranormal romances, vampire shaggers, nosferotica, call them what you will - as being principally about romance with action secondary if present at all. This is a marketing perception. It leads publishers to think more of this stuff will sell. It leads authors to think that this kind of stuff will sell; or, perhaps a more apropos and less cynical way of putting it, it leads authors who want to do things with lots of romance in to find that market appealing. The more of it there is, the more the people who like that kind of thing will buy, the stronger the genre gets, it's self-sustaining and self-fulfilling, and I think LKH and Buffy are explanation enough for how the whole thing got started.
ANd I never, ever stated it was across SF/F as a whole, I specifically stated URBAN FANTASY, as this is what the thread is about.
How are you defining urban fantasy ? I don't think the biases you express about women and romance extend to Emma Bull or Kara Dalkey, for example, in the work of theirs I think of as urban fantasy.
If you want to define urban fantasy specifically as meaning paranormal romance, then yes, sure, lots of it is by female authors and romance-focused; I think what this says is that at the paranormal romance is a popular subgenre and easier to sell than other kinds of urban fantasy, [ witness for example the total failure of the final part of Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan trilogy to find a publisher ] and I do find going from that to generalisations about how men and women write to be problematic.
-
Your statement "Female authors, male or female lead characters, tend to emphasise romantic relationships and such, in their stories" did not read to me as limited to this particular subset of SF/fantasy. My apologies if that was a misreading.
Given the thread was about urban fantasy, I thought it was implied that my statement related to that, not SF\F as a whole.
There is a perception of a certain kind of urban fantasies with female protagonists - paranormal romances, vampire shaggers, nosferotica, call them what you will - as being principally about romance with action secondary if present at all. This is a marketing perception. It leads publishers to think more of this stuff will sell. It leads authors to think that this kind of stuff will sell; or, perhaps a more apropos and less cynical way of putting it, it leads authors who want to do things with lots of romance in to find that market appealing. The more of it there is, the more the people who like that kind of thing will buy, the stronger the genre gets, it's self-sustaining and self-fulfilling, and I think LKH and Buffy are explanation enough for how the whole thing got started.
Possibly. However, there is a lot of stuff I find sitting in teh 'Fantasy' section of my bookstore, that when I read it, could go under romance.
Don't mistake me however, LKH, Kim Harrison and Kelley Armstrong aren't writing romance, it's urban fantasy. It's just that the stories always seem to include worry over a man/love life, being attracted to men, and that being distracting, and so on. Breathless descriptions of how attractive man A is, or how it's unfair that man B is such an asshole, yet so pretty.
Lavish descriptions of clothes and shoes and the rest.
Compare that to some male authors, and you don't have that. There tends to be more action. Yes, they might have partners/sex, but it's a sideline, or a seldom mentioned thing, rather than every 20 pages.
Now, all that said, does it mean every female author who writes urban fantasy does this? Of course not.
It is a trend I've noticed??
Yes, it is.
That was all I was saying.
How are you defining urban fantasy ? I don't think the biases you express about women and romance extend to Emma Bull or Kara Dalkey, for example, in the work of theirs I think of as urban fantasy.
Never read them. The defintion of 'urban fantasy' is very fluid. I define it as fantasy in the modern world.
If you want to define urban fantasy specifically as meaning paranormal romance, then yes, sure, lots of it is by female authors and romance-focused; I think what this says is that at the paranormal romance is a popular subgenre and easier to sell than other kinds of urban fantasy, [ witness for example the total failure of the final part of Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan trilogy to find a publisher ] and I do find going from that to generalisations about how men and women write to be problematic.
Becuase I didn't do this, you did.
You took what I said, assumed I was either talking about a sub genre, or paranormal romance, and ran from there, getting more upset as you went.
What I said was what I had observed from my own reading and my own writing.
Yes, it was a generalisation, but so what.
I never claimed the male or female 'way' was superior. YOu did that in your own mind.
-
Now, all that said, does it mean every female author who writes urban fantasy does this? Of course not.
It is a trend I've noticed??
Yes, it is.
I'm not actually sure there's any point to continuing this argument, because you are making it circular by narrowly defining the grounds you are talking about to give a tautological result. If your argument is that women writing paranormal romance tend to focus on romance, that's true but is it actually saying anything meaningful ? If you want to call LKH's books urban fantasy rather than paranormal romance, fine, but if you then want to exclude other threads of urban fantasy, by whatever definition, until "urban fantasy" is left meaning paranormal romance that happens to be shelved under SF/Fantasy rather than romance, that really does become pointless.
.
You took what I said, assumed I was either talking about a sub genre, or paranormal romance, and ran from there, getting more upset as you went.
I assumed you were talking about a subgenre because you said you were talking about urban fantasy rather than SF/Fantasy in general, and you are disregarding any counterexamples I make, in urban fantasy or out of it, that do not fit your thesis.
I never claimed the male or female 'way' was superior. YOu did that in your own mind.
I've not accused you of saying that. What I am saying, and continue to believe, is that your identification of a particular style as "the female way" is just plain wrong.
-
just plain wrong.
How very male of you. ;D
What? I couldn't resist getting in the middle of a wordfight that I wasn't already involved in LOL!
-
I'm not actually sure there's any point to continuing this argument, because you are making it circular by narrowly defining the grounds you are talking about to give a tautological result. If your argument is that women writing paranormal romance tend to focus on romance, that's true but is it actually saying anything meaningful ? If you want to call LKH's books urban fantasy rather than paranormal romance, fine, but if you then want to exclude other threads of urban fantasy, by whatever definition, until "urban fantasy" is left meaning paranormal romance that happens to be shelved under SF/Fantasy rather than romance, that really does become pointless.
THat is not what I am doing.
Read it again.
I've noticed that a majority, of female writers, despite writing GOOD urban fantasy, play up the romance elements.
THis doesn't mean they are writing paranormal romance, nor am I claiming that all urban fantasy with a romance element is 'paranormal romance'.
A completely seperate point I was making, which may have confused you, was that after urban fantasy started to get popular, a lot of 'paranormal romance' was rebadged and sold as 'urban fantasy'.
I am NOT redefining urban fantasy to be 'paranormal romance'. It was, before all this crap started, simply my observation to LIzard King's question.
I assumed you were talking about a subgenre because you said you were talking about urban fantasy rather than SF/Fantasy in general, and you are disregarding any counterexamples I make, in urban fantasy or out of it, that do not fit your thesis.
My point was that I can only go on books that I, personally, have read. I haven't read the books you offer as a rebuttal, therefore I cannot take them into account, can I?
If you can offer a couterexample I HAVE read, then by all means, we can take this further, although I've already noted that not all female writers do this.
I've not accused you of saying that. What I am saying, and continue to believe, is that your identification of a particular style as "the female way" is just plain wrong.
Well agree to disagree. Multiple female authors all including similar elements, despite vastly different ideas, writing styles and characters?
And Male authors doing the SAME THING, but with different elements?
See, you turned this into a gender debate, when all I was trying to tell Lizard King was that I think male and female authors have a different slant.
It's not a slur on anyone's gender.
Different doesn't equal worse, simply different. Some people may like the male 'way' better, others, the female.
THat was all I was saying.
Men and women think differently, and it's not suprise that that would show up in something like their writing.
-
Men and women think differently, and it's not suprise that that would show up in something like their writing.
Now that HAS to be something we can all agree on! C'mon!
-
Ignores last 17 posts... ::)
Rob Thurman is a pretty good read. I didn't like Caliban as he was in the first book, he just didn't impress me, but that is okay because it was still a great read. I liked him more in Moonshine anyway.
Oh and Glen Cook's Black Company Series, very intersting characters, very gray morals, very real and gritty characters and scenes. Yep The Black Company rules. How are his other series?
-
Now that HAS to be something we can all agree on! C'mon!
Not only do I disagree, I find it pernicious and harmful to believe so. It too easily becomes an excuse for not making the effort to communicate better, at very least, and often worse things than that.
Men are from Earth; women are from Earth; cope.
-
Not only do I disagree, I find it pernicious and harmful to believe so. It too easily becomes an excuse for not making the effort to communicate better, at very least, and often worse things than that.
Men are from Earth; women are from Earth; cope.
We are totally off topic, but are you serious??? Recognizing the differences in how men and women think and percieve is the most effective way to promote effective communications and healthy relationships. Pretending that men and women think identically, and that we are simply clones with different genitals and glands is junvile and mislead. Those physical differences promote different chemical reactions which effect the way we think and react.
Recognize that we are different, and that in that difference we compliement each other, and we are all better for it.
And to pull it back on topic, as Lightsabre has put forth, those differences are real. Women and Men see the world differently, as a whole. And our creations will illustrate those differences. I don't know how you can realisitically argue that point.
-
Not only do I disagree, I find it pernicious and harmful to believe so. It too easily becomes an excuse for not making the effort to communicate better, at very least, and often worse things than that.
Men are from Earth; women are from Earth; cope.
There are significant biochemical differences in the processes of men's brains and women's brains in general (as always, there are individual exceptions and degrees of difference, but on the whole, there's a sizeable functional variation between the two). In other words, in general, men and women DO think differently. The effort to communicate better has to take that into consideration and accommodate it, not attempt to ignore those differences arbitrarily. We ARE different. Equal, just not the same. It's a biological fact. The only way that should affect our actions is by taking it into account, accepting it and WORKING with it. We have to UNDERSTAND that the other gender undergoes different biological processes in thinking in order for the genders to BEGIN to understand each other. That's the whole point - understanding and dealing with the Other. This applies not only to gender differences but to individuals as well; Joe just ain't gonna think exactly the same way as Bill. Our job is to cope with those differences by accepting them and moving past them anyway. Sweeping those glaring neurochemical differences under a rug of PC will NOT nullify them.
-
Not only do I disagree, I find it pernicious and harmful to believe so. It too easily becomes an excuse for not making the effort to communicate better, at very least, and often worse things than that.
Men are from Earth; women are from Earth; cope.
What does this have to do with communication?
As the others have said, Men and Women do think differently.
IT's a biological fact.
Cope.
Sweeping it all into a 'we're all exactly the same' cupboard is not just hazardous to communication, it's hazardous to development of humankind in general.
-
What does this have to do with communication?
As the others have said, Men and Women do think differently.
IT's a biological fact.
Cope.
Sweeping it all into a 'we're all exactly the same' cupboard is not just hazardous to communication, it's hazardous to development of humankind in general.
I agree. We were all made different for a reason. Although I don't really know the reason but we're not one and the same.
-
... Wow
Gods I miss a day I miss a lot. ahh forum life.
My wife had the displeasure of skimming the posts over my shoulder just now, and I'll spare our fellow Forumites the series of four, five, and six letter words that came out of her mouth.
Biological differences aside, we are also talking about over 2,000 years of social identification to work against. I'm not saying it's impossible for a female author to think, or write, like a male one. I am saying that by the time one is old enough to read and write, they have been subject to the unwritten social standards of everyday society, whether directly or indirectly. I am not meaning this as a negative point, it's just an observation of the slight-but-there variations between male and female daily life.
we've come a long way from the paleolithic ideals of "Hunter/gatherer and childbearer". Socially women are on equal grounds with men. To demand that women think exactly like men is either A) Utopian and therefore doomed to fail, or B) pushing that women are still inferior to men on some level because they think differently.
I can't say I've read nearly as many books as many of you, so I am reserved to arguing on the biological/social grounds, and leave noting the differences between author X and author Y to those who have a larger Repertoire.
-
Biological differences aside, we are also talking about over 2,000 years of social identification to work against. I'm not saying it's impossible for a female author to think, or write, like a male one. I am saying that by the time one is old enough to read and write, they have been subject to the unwritten social standards of everyday society, whether directly or indirectly. I am not meaning this as a negative point, it's just an observation of the slight-but-there variations between male and female daily life.
Slight is kind of the point. If there's any systemic difference between how men and women think, it's invisible behind the scale of the differences between expected social roles and between individuals, and if you've not had the occasion to see firm evidence of that, I can only suggest travelling more, reading more widely, and getting to know more cultures and more people, where the expected social roles are different or who just don't actually think those social roles worth accepting. The "there are ways all women think alike and different ways all men think alike" argument dismisses the reality of far too many of the real people I know and care about, women and men, for me to accept it for a moment; that there are ways in which mainstream Western society expects and wants all women to think alike and different ways in which it expects and wants all men to think alike, sure, but so many of these ways seem deeply harmful to me that I'm entirely unwilling to accept them, and will oppose them wherever I can.
-
Slight is kind of the point. If there's any systemic difference between how men and women think, it's invisible behind the scale of the differences between expected social roles and between individuals, and if you've not had the occasion to see firm evidence of that, I can only suggest travelling more, reading more widely, and getting to know more cultures and more people, where the expected social roles are different or who just don't actually think those social roles worth accepting. The "there are ways all women think alike and different ways all men think alike" argument dismisses the reality of far too many of the real people I know and care about, women and men, for me to accept it for a moment; that there are ways in which mainstream Western society expects and wants all women to think alike and different ways in which it expects and wants all men to think alike, sure, but so many of these ways seem deeply harmful to me that I'm entirely unwilling to accept them, and will oppose them wherever I can.
That is a completely Valid and personal rational for your beliefs, and I respect that.
It is also Valid to point out that these expectations are not enforced in any way other than the individuals desire/lack thereof to conform. The ubiquitous urge to "fit in" is a far worse prison for the mind than any standards or regulations on thought. It has been my experience that most people in the creative fields (artists, writers, architects etc...) are more often than not free thinkers above these standards.
This is more and more looking not like an argument between Male and Female perspectives, rather between Masculine and Feminine.
-
It is also Valid to point out that these expectations are not enforced in any way other than the individuals desire/lack thereof to conform.
It would be really nice if social pressures against people in non-standard gender roles never translated into economic pressures or worse, but try telling that to, for example, a man who has a genuine gift for childcare trying to get a job in that direction.