Jess, in an enjoyable rant:
<<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,...>>
Less action, maybe. But less plot? This is manifestly false
in the mystery field.
<<emotions than logic,>>
This dichotomy (which really doesn't exist for humans)
should, if anything, be turned around: in my experience, it's
women who are more analytical and men who rely more on
"intuition", "gut feeling" and "spontaneous reactions". I
feel so sure enough of this to make a public fool of myself
by generalizing it...
<<social structures and dynamics (such as family
set-ups) than with the individual.>>
This makes no sense. I would say that social structures, etc.
have been given about the same weight by male and female
writers.
Let's take a baker's dozen Nobel prize winners:
Sinclair Lewis - social
Dario Fo - social
Jean Paul Sartre - both
Marcel Camus - individual
Ernest Hemingway - individual
William Faulkner - both
Camilo José ƒela - both
Jose Saramago - social
Saul Bellow - both
Gabriel Garcí¡ Má²±uez - both
Naguib Mahfouz - both
Toni Morrison - both
Even within male writers, there's no clear rule, though it
seems that many have given similar weight to the individual
and to society and relationships.
Regards,
mt
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/
-- # 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 : 28 May 2000 EDT