Words from the Monastery wrote:
> Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course ... are
there readers who are
> exceptions as well? Yes to that as well. Maybe I'm
the exception to the rule
> ... some inherent psychic ability that tells me who
the author is and it
> actually has nothing to do with the writing, but
being able to tell the
> difference in the writing perspectives is just the
most rational
> interpretation of that psychic knowledge ... I don't
think so.
Is a rule that has more exceptions than applications still a
rule? I can find no or few similarities between the female
writers I listed--or indeed any other female writers. After
all, one wouldn't say that there's an "African-American
perspective" or an "African-American eye," so why say it
about women?
Unless you would say that, in which case this discussion is
going to go on for a -long- time.
> "Written on the Body" by Jeanette Winterson is
touted by the literati as a
> novel who's protagonist is genderless and Ms
Winterson is praised for her
> superior writing ability at being able to
successfully accomplish this ...
> but from my reading perspective the protagonist is
obviously a woman. To
Funny, but the literati I know and read, in places like the
London Review of Books and the NY Review of Book, say no such
thing. Of course, they say that Winterson is an overrated
poetaster, too.
> "give" specifics (if such things exist) would
require a rereading, but the
> mannerisms and view are obviously not male ... well,
the character isn't a
> male then what's left for the character to
be?
So the default for not-male is female? Are you saying, then,
that any writer who doesn't have your "female voice" is
therefore a male? You've just broadened the parameters of the
"female voice" to the point at which it's useless as a
definition or for discussion.
Look, if there's such a thing as a "female voice" then it has
to have a core set of characteristics. Simply saying that
anyone who doesn't write with the
"male voice" therefore has a "female voice" makes that set of
characteristics much too broad and all-embracing.
Perhaps you should first define what you mean by not writing
like a male?
Another trouble I have with this argument is that it assumes
that all women are going to write from a certain perspective,
along a certain axis (if you'll forgive the academictalk),
regardless of who they are. In my experience people often
write from a number of axes, not all of which have to do with
who they are. A woman writer might write as a woman, but also
as a Jew, as an African- Canadian, and as a lesbian. Or she
might write simply as a Jew and a lesbian. Or simply as a
liberal Jew. The same applies to men. But I've never found
any basic set of characteristics that applies to all women
writers everywhere, or even to most women.
> I'll look into the works you've listed and those
that others have listed and
> take notes while reading them ... see what I can
come up with. But while I
> do that ... maybe some of you believe there is no
difference can come up
> with quantifiable evidence supporting your view
beyond your opinion that
> it's so as well (that is what y'all are asking me to
after all ... turn
> about is fair play) ... prove me wrong.
:)
You're asking us to prove a negative, which is of course a
rhetorical cheat. I'm
asking you to prove a positive--that all women writers (and
all women, for that matter) share a certain point of view and
perspective. You're asking us to prove that there isn't such
a thing.
It's not like I've never encountered this argument before. In
certain circles in academica it's all the rage to talk of
"essentials"--women are essentially this way, those of
African descent are essentially that way. And some academics
draw from this an essentially female point of view and voice.
They usually define it as being more concerned with
relationships than with action or plot, emotions than logic,
social structures and dynamics (such as family set-ups) than
with the individual. (I'm horribly summarizing their
argument, but that's the gist of it)
The trouble I've always found with this definition--which may
not be your definition--is that while there are unarguably
some women who write like this, there are also a lot of women
who don't write like this. And there are men who write like
that. If it's a "female perspective," surely all women should
share it, then? Or at least most?
But I've gone on too long. Sorry. Your turn. :-)
jess
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 May 2000 EDT