I have a question.

[Rose]

I read mostly women, I admit, but I also read men. I'm sure you all have noticed the differences between "women writing styles" and "men writing styles." And I've read men who write like women and women who write like men.
But that has very little to do with my question.
When I read women, I get the feeling of a real community, something that runs in common with them, something that I feel a part of. When I read men, I get the impression of one good (or bad) book by one individual and no sense of connection with other male writers.
My question is: Does it seem this way to me because I'm a woman?
I hope to have the impressions of both men and women.

[Sherry, Doyenne]

Your question is really something I never considered. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. One of my favorite writers is Kate Atkinson. I don't notice that she writes like anyone other than herself, whether man or woman. I also really like many male writers. Maybe you can give examples of what you mean.

[Kat]

I, too, would be interested in examples. I tend to enjoy women authors more than men in part because I (often) see myself reflected more in those works. (Though I sometimes also experience that with male writers, other times I feel completely left out of the picture.) But I can't say I feel this sense of community you speak of--there are so many women writers, all so very different from each other!

[Carol]

I like men and women writers equally. If the book holds my interest, it is the writing not the gender of the author.

[Cateline]

Carol wrote: "I like men and women writers equally. If the book holds my interest, it is the writing not the gender of the author."

That is true, Carol. I just counted from last year's list though and it seems I have read twice the number of male authors as women. Gender is never a factor in choosing a book, I don't even think about it when choosing.

I've found the level of introspection and empathy to be more or less equal between certain of either gender.

I don't quite understand the question, Rosabeatrice. As others have said, examples would be helpful.

[Julia]

If I have two books in my hand, one by a female author and one by a male, and if all things being equal like they are both new authors to me and the books have the same tone and same genre, ect...,then I'd probably chose the female author to read first just because I'd assume I'd relate easier to the main character. I don't think this is rational, but it's true.
Men who read sci-fi must feel that way because many women who write in that genre usually do so under a male or androgynous pseudonym.
Again I think it is not rational, but one of those strange myths we pick up in our childhoods.

[☯Emily]

Rosabeatrice wrote: "I read mostly women, I admit, but I also read men. I'm sure you all have noticed the differences between "women writing styles" and "men writing styles." And I've read men who write like women and ..."

I think you said in another post that you liked to read 18th and 19th literature. I think it is true that female novelists during that time period wrote more about the family, the community and relationships with each other. That was the center of the female world. However, in today's society, there is not such a great difference in the lives of men and women. I don't see a particular sense of community confined to just one sex in today's literature. Sorry if this is not what you are referring to.

[Donna]

" When I read women, I get the feeling of a real community, something that runs in common with them, something that I feel a part of. When I read men, I get the impression of one good (or bad) book by one individual and no sense of connection with other male writers."

I had to chuckle at this comment because it prompted me to look back at some of my doctoral research from years ago in which I analyzed the characteristics of male and female narrative styles. Your casual observations captured what I found in my research which was also popularized by the books of Deborah Tannen. Of course these differences are not absolute but rather exist on a continuum and skilled authors, female or male, will incorporate a variety of styles based on their intent.

[Rose]

Thanks for your answers! I have no examples in particular of what I mean. However, if I'm looking for a murder mystery, I usually choose one written by a woman because you get more description of emotions and a character's intuition, more psychological motivation. In any book I've read by a woman, there's more emotional responsability. What do I mean by that? To be honest, I'm not sure. But men seem more often to have good or bad characters and not so many characters who are doubtful that what they're doing is right.
I appreciated Donna's comment. And right now I'm thinking of an Italian writer, Dino Buzzati, that I like very much. I've never read him in an English translation, but he just seems to have a softness and a subtlety (That can't be how you spell it, can it?). But he writes mostly allegory, sometimes sly social comments. (He wrote "The desert of the Tartari," for those of you who don't know his work. I think it's in that book 1001 books you must read before you die.)
And I'm thinking also of Jane Eyre and a response to it that I want to read. And there's also a second one which I saw mentioned on this site.
I don't know how to explain myself better. I guess I'd better think about it some more. Maybe I'll look through my books and see what I can find.
And you know, of course, that these things are never true of everybody. Everybody's different, no matter what category they belong to.
In the meantime, I'm going to look up Deborah Tannen. I never heard of her before.
And I can't help but notice that everyone who responded is a woman! I definitely think that means something! Don't you?

[Rose]

I've been thinking more about what I said about male and female writing. Of course, everyone is different. But just in general, you wouldn't expect a man to write like Virginia Woolf and you wouldn't expect a woman to write like Ernest Hemingway. Okay, now you're all thinking of exceptions to that. And I'm sure there are a lot. Still, I think my idea holds up. As I said, just in general.
And then, too, I'm coming to this from a feminist point of view. Have any of you ever read "The Thirteenth Tale" by Diane Setterfield? It's a great book and is an obvious decendent of Austen and the Brontes and Middlemarch. She even mentions them in the book. I haven't seen men having that relationship.
And if you choose a book by a man or a woman, all else being equal, just because the book was by a man or a woman, I think there's a reason whether you're aware of it on a conscious level or not.
If women use a man's name when they write a type of book commonly read by men, there's a reason. If men write romance novels under a woman's name, there's a reason.

[Charles]

I'd like to see Donna's research. I've fiddled with Biber's work on register variation but don't have the software clout to be serious. I did identify a distinct register of fictional speech, though. In general, I would suspect any claims concerning gendered styles as possibly impressionistic or based on an insufficient database.

People interested in this topic ought to read Tuchman and Fortin's Edging Women Out, about the late 19th century shift in the business of fiction from women (as it was originally) to men (as it was until about 1970 when women again became the majority of writers and purchasers of fiction.

I think casual criticism of gendered style is strongly influenced by the gender of the critic. Why wouldn't I expect a woman to write like Hemingway? Is is only that few have? Is there something about literary minimalism that makes it specifically male?Women weren't expected to write hard-boiled detective stories either, until they did.

Many female readers criticize a book for defective portrayal of female characters. Perhaps, but does anyone complain about defective male characters? Fictional men are just characters. The situation is asymmetric.

The elephant in the room here is Molly Bloom's thoughts which occupy the last chapter of Ulysses, which I consider the finest statement of adult love ever written. By a man, attributed to a woman.

I hope I haven't been inflammatory.

[Rose]

I haven't explained myself too well which must be why no one seems to understand me! But I still see a difference between men's writing and women's writing. Why shouldn't a man write like Woolf and why shouldn't a woman write like Hemingway? Why not, inded! Well, I'm sure lots of them do. But maybe, just maybe, it would make some kind of weird sense to compare writing to dressing. You wouldn't expect a man to wear a dress or a woman to read a tuxedo. But it can, and is, done. But we still, at this point in history, expect a man to wear a suit and a woman to wear an evening gown. And I happen to prefer evening gowns to suits.
I just made it worse, didn't I? Now, people understand me even less! This is what comes of being a poet!

[Joan]

I think the best writers can assume the persona of either sex--Flaubert in Madame Bovary for exmaple. Or Virginia Woolf in Orlando. I don't think good writing is gender-related. I certainly don't have a preference for male or female writers, just talented ones.

[Andrea]

Rosabeatrice wrote: if you choose a book by a man or a woman, all else being equal, just because the book was by a man or a woman, I think there's a reason whether you're aware of it on a conscious level or not.
If women use a man's name when they write a type of book commonly read by men, there's a reason. If men write romance novels under a woman's name, there's a reason. Yes, there is a reason, or reasons, which may have as much to do with preconceived ideas or marketing as with a writer's own gender ambiguities or issues. This begs for some double-blind testing: read and guess:was this novel written by a a)woman b)man c)gay woman d)gay man e)transexual f)bi woman g)bi man h)trans man to woman i)trans woman to man etc. etc; I'm sure i'm forgetting a few categories! But seriously, I think I understand what you are saying, although I personally don't recall ever having chosen one author over another because of their gender. That said, readers' expectations do exist (hence your original comment)but maybe we do tend to choose on an unconscious level.

[Rose]

Ok, I think I might have something now.

I was looking on the internet for something that might support what I’ve been saying about women in their own literary community in addition to all that feminist stuff and all that lesbian stuff, not exactly the same stuff, although there’s lots of overlap.

Anyway, I found these two books, both of which are pretty old:

The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar
and
A Literature of Their Own: British Women Novelists from Bronte to Lessing
by Elaine Showalter

The titles alone seem to suggest that I’m not having hallucinations, that is, that I’m not the only one who has noticed this feeling of community.

And then, too, I just remembered. Years ago, when I went into a feminist bookstore, or maybe when I bought a book from a feminist publisher, I was given a bookmark, or maybe it was a button, that said: I write like a woman.

One of you said that maybe I feel this way because I read 18th and 19th century novels written by women and women’s lives were limited in those days. While that’s a good point, you have to keep in mind that that isn’t all I read and there are still too many women in the world whose lives are limited even today. (Ever live in Sicily? Mamma mia!) And even in those days there were already women whose lives weren’t limited. Certainly the women who were writing those novels weren’t limited to housework.

While going through 1001 Books to find the next batch of books I want to buy, I came across the following (Keep in mind that I have an Italian translation and I have to translate back into English, so the wording won’t likely be what you have in your books.):

Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons. In the last paragraph of the review, it says “The target of the biting satire of Cold Comfort Farm goes from the social machinations of Austen...” To me, that means that, in a real sense, Cold Comfort Farm is a descendent of Austen’s novels.

Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. At the end of the second paragraph, it describes the book in a way that makes it sound a lot like Jane Eyre. In fact, at the beginning of the third paragraph, it says that Maxim vaguely resembles Rochester in Jane Eyre.

Jean Rhys, besides writing Wide Sargasso Sea, a response to Jane Eyre, wrote Good Morning, Midnight, whose title is taken from a poem by Emily Dickinson. (I’ve also seen, somewhere on this site, another book written by a woman in response to Jane Eyre.)

Love in a Cold Climate by Nancy Mitford. At the end of the review, it says “Like Jane Austen’s novels, Mitford’s novels concentrate on the small social machinations of an exclusive family and its ambient.”

Fear of Flying by Erica Jong. In the review, it says that one of the characters, Isadora Wing, a writer, is inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft and Virginia Woolf.

The Female Quixote by Charlotte Lennox. You can, very rightly, point out that the book was written as a reaction to a book written by a man. However, the very first sentence of the review says that “...The Female Quixote anticipates Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen.”

Maybe it doesn’t seem like much, but it’s enough considering I wasn’t even looking for it and besides, I could see it so clearly long before 1001 Books was published.

I’m really glad I found these things because I was beginning to think the American feminist movement was all in my imagination. But there really is a women’s culture; I see that even when I read novels written by women from countries all over the world. It’s fascinating to see how, although cultures are so different, we women are, deep down, all the same.

Although all of you bring up excellent points, I still see what I see. And I like it!

[Cateline]

What a fascinating post! I absolutely love the points you've made, and the examples you've given.
(adding to my want to buy list).
Thanks. :)

[Rose]

Joan wrote: "I think the best writers can assume the persona of either sex--Flaubert in Madame Bovary for exmaple. Or Virginia Woolf in Orlando. I don't think good writing is gender-related. I certainly don't h..."

Hi, Joan! I don't think Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary assuming the persona of a woman. It seemed to me a book a man would write about a woman. Orlando--I read about 40 years ago and I don't remember the voice. All I remember is that it's the only book by Woolf that I didn't like much. (Maybe because it wasn't written like a woman?)

But you're right, of course--the best writers can do whatever they want, including writing as someone they're not.

I don't think good writing is gender related, either. That was never what I was trying to say. I just see a difference. And I think I can infer that you see a difference, too, otherwise, how did you develop the opinion that Flaubert wrote Madame Bovery as a woman and Woolf wrote Orlando as a man?

[Rose]

Cateline wrote: "What a fascinating post! I absolutely love the points you've made, and the examples you've given.
(adding to my want to buy list).
Thanks. :)"

Thanks for your thanks! I hope you have some time to tell me what books you've decided to buy!

[Joan]

Rosabeatrice wrote: "Joan wrote: "I think the best writers can assume the persona of either sex--Flaubert in Madame Bovary for exmaple. Or Virginia Woolf in Orlando. I don't think good writing is gender-related. I cert..."

Flaubert actually said "I am Madame Bovary."
Orlando was bisexual--sometimes a woman, sometimes a man. Probably a metaphor for Woolf's own sexual ambiguity which wavered between lesbianism and asexuality. After one traumatic episode, she and Leonard never again attempted intercourse.

[Cateline]

Rosabeatrice,
I've read, of course, Rebecca and have started but put aside Wide Sargasso Sea. And have the Mitford on the shelf TBR.

Your Rhys will definitely go on the wish list, and I will pull the others above from the shelf to go into a stack TBR. (stack being closer to being read than shelf) :)

[Cateline]

Rosabeatrice wrote: "Thanks for your thanks! I hope you have some time to tell me what books you've decided to buy!..."

I've now read The Sisterhood, and while I enjoyed it, it had a bit too much of Magic Realism and Romantic overtones for my taste. I wrote a review you can find here. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Rose]

Cateline wrote: "Rosabeatrice wrote: "Thanks for your thanks! I hope you have some time to tell me what books you've decided to buy!..."

I've now read The Sisterhood, and while I enjoyed it, it had a bit too much ..."

Well, now you've made me want to put Rebecca on my list of books to buy. I wish I had the money to buy all the books I want or at least that the city I live in (Viterbo, a small city in central Italy) had a better library! My problem is, I keep getting hungry and then I run out and spend my money on foolish things like food!
But I'm in the middle of making a new list and I had checked off Rebecca but didn't actually put it on the current list. Now I will.
As for The Sisterhood, I'm not crazy about romance novels or big strong men, either. It drives me crazy. Or, to be honest, reviews that tell me the end of a book!!! Aaaargh! But we'll see.

[Rose]

Joan wrote: "Rosabeatrice wrote: "Joan wrote: "I think the best writers can assume the persona of either sex--Flaubert in Madame Bovary for exmaple. Or Virginia Woolf in Orlando. I don't think good writing is g..."

"Flaubert actually said "I am Madame Bovary." "

Did he actually say that in the book? If so, I'm embarrassed! I read this book two times and, the second time, not so long ago. Yet I have no memory of that whatsoever. I'll have to read it again.

"Orlando was bisexual--sometimes a woman, sometimes a man. Probably a metaphor for Woolf's own sexual ambiguity which wavered between lesbianism and asexuality. After one traumatic episode, she and Leonard never again attempted intercourse."

But Woolf was sexually abused by her brother and even suffered attacks of insanity because of it. Is her reluctance really an indication of ambiguity? And then, lots of women are lesbians or bisexuals and there's no ambiguity.

[Cateline]

Rosabeatrice wrote: "As for The Sisterhood, I'm not crazy about romance novels or big strong men, either. It drives me crazy. Or, to be honest, reviews that tell me the end of a book!!! Aaaargh! But we'll see. "

I equally dislike books that are so predictable, the reader know from the get-go the ending. Or, at least how fiction will end it.

[Scout]

I've wondered why an author chooses to write from the point of view of the opposite sex. And why they feel qualified to do so.

[Joan]

Rosabeatrice wrote: "Joan wrote: "Rosabeatrice wrote: "Joan wrote: "I think the best writers can assume the persona of either sex--Flaubert in Madame Bovary for exmaple. Or Virginia Woolf in Orlando. I don't think good..."

Flaubert responded to a question about his intentions in writing from a feminine perspective saying "I am Madame Bovary."
It is quite hard to rationalize Woolf's attacks of insanity as reactions to her abuse as a child. Of course, that affected her sexuality, but her attacks seem more like bi-polar illness complicated by anorexia.

[Ruth]

Scout wrote: "I've wondered why an author chooses to write from the point of view of the opposite sex. And why they feel qualified to do so."

People write about all sorts of people they are not. Pirates, murderers, slaves, dentists, mountain climbers...

[Rose]

Joan wrote: "Rosabeatrice wrote: "Joan wrote: "Rosabeatrice wrote: "Joan wrote: "I think the best writers can assume the persona of either sex--Flaubert in Madame Bovary for exmaple. Or Virginia Woolf in Orland..."
I’ve just been looking at my edition of Madame Bovary and I found this in the introduction written by the translator, Sandra Teroni: “Madame Bovary, c’est moi” avrebbe detto—ma mai scritto—Flaubert.” In other words, he never wrote it anywhere and we don’t even know for sure that he even said it.
In another part of her introduction, Teroni quotes Baudelaire as calling Bovary a “bizzarro androgino” who’s got all the charms of a virile soul in a seductive woman’s body. To me that means that Bovary, like her author, was a man who, of femininity, had only the body. (Of course, I don't know anything about Flaubert's body.)
The book is narrated by a man. Why would Flaubert choose a male narrator if he wanted to sound like a woman? In other parts of her introduction, Teroni says that Flaubert used some of his own health and spiritual situation as part of Bovary’s character, but we all do that when we write. We have to use ourselves to create characters. It’s just part of the job.

It's like Ruth said: People write about all sorts of people they are not. And even some people that they are.
The book, if I’m remembering correctly and after a quick look at the introduction and a few pages here and there, is pretty much the story of Charles Bovary and all the problems that his wife causes him. I know people will disagree with me. Frankly, I’m not sure I agree with myself. But the book starts with him and ends with him, as though his wife’s suicide was just another one of the problems she caused him. I don’t think a woman would have seen it that way. I certainly don’t think she would have continued to talk about her situation after she killed herself! (Just being goofy to make a point.)
I know you can’t judge the style of the original by reading a translation, so I won’t do that. But I think, after looking over a few pages, that the style of the Italian translation that I have is masculine—and very distanced from the heart and soul of Madame Bovary herself.
So what do you think?

[Rose]

Scout wrote: "I've wondered why an author chooses to write from the point of view of the opposite sex. And why they feel qualified to do so."

You should ask an author why he or she chooses to write from the point of view of the opposite sex. And when you do, let me know what they say. I've wondered about it myself.
I don't think I'd ever write from the point of view of a man.
Although, I rarely wonder when a woman decides to write as a man or about men. The book sells more, that's why. I remember years ago, reading a magazine for writers, in which an article, written by a man, suggested that, when you write a book for children, you should make the main character a boy because, while girls are willing to read books about boys, most boys won't read books about girls, so your books will sell better.
It just goes to show you that sexism doesn't have to be sexism to oppress women.
I mean, who do you take more seriously--Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple?
Actually, I don't take either one of them seriously, but that's not the point.

[Rose]

"Flaubert responded to a question about his intentions in writing from a feminine perspective saying "I am Madame Bovary." "
I just remembered that this introduction also said that he might have been influenced by newspaper articles about women in situations similar to Bovary's. And it just seems to me, especially in those days, that choosing a woman as the focus of this character makes more sense because we need someone who doesn't earn her own money, and for a good reason--that it was easier in those days for a woman to marry a doctor than to become a doctor.



"It is quite hard to rationalize Woolf's attacks of insanity as reactions to her abuse as a child. Of course, that affected her sexuality, but her attacks seem more like bi-polar illness complicated by anorexia."

What is 'bi-polar illness' and why would it be complicated by anorexia?
I'm not exactly a shrink, but couldn't 'bi-polar illness' be caused by sexual abuse? I mean 'illness' sounds like a result and sexual abuse causes a lot of problems.
The way you've phrased your sentence makes it sound as though you think child sexual abuse is not so serious and is reletively easy to get over. In fact, things less serious than that can cause insanity.

[Joan]

Bi-polar used to be known as manic-depression and is largely genetic. V.Woolf also suffered from anorexia, two separate issues.
Of course, I don't think child sexual abuse is insignificant; however, I think it probably affects people differently (as do most things). Some people are able to just go forward with their lives, others can't.

Also, it has been pretty much shown that some mental illness is biological (bi-polar, schizophrenia), while others such as PTSD are caused by stress.

[Rose]

This is interesting to me because I know someone who suffers from what her doctor calls (I can't spell psycholagist) manic-depression and her whole family has certain problems. Of course, this would be in Italy where they're behind with everything. I've never heard the expression bi-polar before.
If you happen to know of a book about it, let me know. If you don't know anything, please don't bother looking. I can find something myself.

"It is quite hard to rationalize Woolf's attacks of insanity as reactions to her abuse as a child. Of course, that affected her sexuality, but her attacks seem more like bi-polar illness complicated by anorexia."

I have to admit I don't really understand this part of your previous response. Why shouldn't Woof go crazy that way because of child sexual abuse? As you say yourself, different people react differently. There are no rules saying what can make you go crazy.

It's less likely for sexual abuse to affect your sexuality than it is to make you insane. Lots of lesbians were never sexually abused and lots of hetero women were sexually abused.

[Rose]

Carol wrote: "I like men and women writers equally. If the book holds my interest, it is the writing not the gender of the author."


Hi, Carol.
I was trying to find my way out of these messages and I saw yours and re-read it.
You say you like male and female writers equally and it's the writing that you look for, not the gender of the writer.
I think maybe you missed my point. I look for the quality of the writing, too. I don't really prefer women writers. What I prefer is the way many, many women write. And I don't like the way many, many men write.
In fact, I like Dino Buzzati precisely because he has the sensibility of a woman and writes from that mentality.
Have you ever read "The desert of the Tartars"? (Or whatever they call it in English) I can just imagine a woman writing an allegory about the futility of life and writing it in the voice that Buzzati uses. It's one of the few books that I personally would consider perfect.
It's the (female style) writing I look for, not the gender of the writer.

[Rose]

Please read this. I’m serious!

About five months ago I put a message in this group asking about whether people had noticed that women write like women and men write like men. Most of the people who responded said that they didn’t see a difference or that, if they did, it wasn’t important. And it left me wondering whether I had imagined the second wave of American feminism.

Then I found out about this book: A literature of their own, British women writers from Charlotte Brontë to Doris Lessing by Elaine Showalter first published by Virago Press in 1978.

(I’ve been living in Italy for about ten years and I had always bought books in Italian translations because I found it easier and cheaper than buying books in English. Now I’ve gotten myself a debit card and I’ve been ordering books in English from Amazon.it)

Although Brontë was born in 1816 and Lessing was born in 1919 (Is she still alive?), as old as this book is, it still holds up today. I’m still on chapter one, and I’ve already found stuff that backs me up—stuff that I had thought before I knew about this book.

The very first chapter is called “The Female Tradition” and some quotes from it are:

“...many readers of the novel over the past two centuries have nonetheless had the indistinct but persistent impression of a unifying voice in women’s literature.”

“...a special female self-awareness emerges through literature in every period.”

“Many other critics are beginning to agree that when we look at women writers collectively we can see an imaginative continuum, the recurrence of certain patterns, themes, problems, and images from generation to generation.”

“Thus the clergyman’s daughter, going to Mudie’s for her three-decker novel by another clergyman’s daughter, participated in a cultural exchange that had a special personal significance.”

There are two points that seem to be important to me:

1) I, as a writer, am following in this tradition. Some of the things that I’ve found women like the Brontës, Austen, Woolf, to be doing are things I’ve done myself, without knowing that they had done it.

2) I think most people would have to agree that men, too, have a literature of their own, with the only difference being that, in the case of men, we don’t call it ‘men’s literature.’ Instead, we just call it ‘literature.’

I also like to read novels by women in other cultures. Take Marcela Serrano, for example, one of my favorite writers. She’s from Chile and she says herself that she’s very moved by women and wonders why half the human race has taken on such a heavy burden while the other half doesn’t do anything. In one book, she has two friends talking about a third mutual friend. One says: she’s having an affair. The other says: How do you know? The first one explains: She’s shaving her legs. No married woman shaves her legs in the winter unless she’s having an affair.

But don’t get the impression that Serrano writes gossipy unimportant women’s stories because she’s extremely political, even in the male sense.

And all those books by women in various countries in Asia, Africa, even in Europe and I the US—women have so much in common everywhere, the same hardships (although in different degrees), the same dreams, the same problems, the same concerns. If you could subtract the indications of time and place, you wouldn’t be able to guess what time and place these women were coming from

So my question is this: Since all you people like to read, and hardly any of you have noticed a commonality among women writers, what books have you been reading?

That’s a real question. It’s not a challenge or anything negative. I’d really most sincerely like to know what you’ve been reading that has made your view of the world so different from mine. I’m sure I could learn something important from it.

Please tell me! :)

[Nicole]

I think, actually, that the sense of community you feel is probably coming from your prior knowledge that the author is a woman, and not from anything inherent in the style or even the content. Likewise, the tradition that female authors belong to, feel themselves belonging to, actively contribute to, is a tradition that has been actively constructed through shared literary history, political engagement, or the need to overcome preconceptions about their work that come with gender. Women may, in some cases, be responding to similar difficulties and contextual issues, but this is hardly the same as a female style.

Indeed, I would go further and say that this kind of claim -- that there is something inherent in women's writing that makes it female -- is not only problematic, but actively dangerous; this is exactly the kind of claim that is used (still) to dismiss women's writing.

I recently read this from Harper's, which I found very much to the point (see particularly the concrete examples which give the lie to expectations about gender and style). It was published in 1998, and is by Francine Prose: http://harpers.org/archive/1998/06/sc...

[Joan]

I agree with Nicole. For the most part, writers write as individuals, not as avatars of their gender.

[Sara]

In agreement as well.

[Carol]

Joan wrote: "I agree with Nicole. For the most part, writers write as individuals, not as avatars of their gender."

Joan, that is my thoughts exactly.

[Cateline]

Nichole wrote: Indeed, I would go further and say that this kind of claim -- that there is something inherent in women's writing that makes it female -- is not only problematic, but actively dangerous; this is exactly the kind of claim that is used (still) to dismiss women's writing.

I particularly agree with this.

[Tonya]

I missed all of this back in February, so have just read the entire conversation. And I have to say, Rosabeatrice, I understand and agree with what you have said. Just about everything. (It is not necessarily true that when contemplating the 2 books, I would choose to read the woman. I am a mood-driven reader, so it would depend on which I was most in the mood to read.)

[Charles]

Something is missing here: the matter of the market. Until about 1870 women were the majority consumers of literature and an important force in its production as well (Edging Women Out: Victorian Novelists, Publishers And Social Change). This changed when the market grew big enough and the profession of uthor acquired enough prestige to attract men. This situation persisted for about a century. At present, women are by far the largest producers and consumers of books. They are also coming to be better educated then men.

One has to be careful with these generalizations in particular cases. The sensation novel of the 1860s which attracted so many new female readers from the working classes had as it's early and most prominent practitioners Wilkie Collins and Mary Elizabeth Braddon Collins was a Dickkens protege. Braddon wrote to live. In what sense is there a gender difference between The Woman in White and Lady Audley's Secret?

My argument is very primitive would be seen to be full of holes in the hands of any competent critic. The point to be remembered is that "women's literature" is a product of market and prestige. The question of whether there is an identifiable women's style or content is a different question. The two should not be confused. The second question, which I take to be the one of real interest here, is much the more difficult to address. Stylistics, perhaps in the form of Douglas Biber's studies of register varition, or sociology in the form of Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of habitus and doxa, might be brought to bear. Elaine Showalter's book is very good, and Showalter herself is a major scholar. In lesser hands it is far too easy to bend these arguments toward the rhetorical and ideological.

Consider, for example, this prior question: why have women always been the major consumers of fiction? Is fiction inherently gendered in some way? I find such a question much more interesting than tooting the horns of this or that author, be it man or woman.

[Ann D]

Are we talking about all books here or books that are considered "literary?"

If we are talking about books in general, I think there is definitely a difference between female and male sensibilities. In popular fiction, women write much more about relationships and love. Men write much more about action and sex.

I tend to prefer women mystery writers like Jacqueline Winspear and Susan Hill because of the emphasis on relationships. However, depending on my mood, I also enjoy male writers like Jo Nesbo. I just try not to think about the terrible gore sometimes present in the Scandinavian mysteries.

In more serious fiction, both female and male writers strive for universality in their characters and their themes.

It doesn't bother me at all that Flaubert put himself in the head of a very strong female character, Madame Bovary. He did a great job. Likewise, Tolstoy's ANNA KARENINA is one of my favorite works.

As far as women writers doing an effective job of portraying male characters, I think Hillary Mantel does an outstanding job with Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall / Bring Up the Bodies. I also completely empathized with the young native American boy who was the protagonist of Louise Erdrich's The Round House. These are just a couple of examples from my recent reading.

In this day and age, I would hate to think that good writers are limited by only seeing things through the prism of their own sex.

[Ruth]

Good analysis, Ann.

[Rose]

Nicole wrote: "I think, actually, that the sense of community you feel is probably coming from your prior knowledge that the author is a woman, and not from anything inherent in the style or even the content. Lik..."

No, the sense of community I feel is definitely NOT coming from my prior knowledge that the author is a woman.

[Rose]

Cateline wrote: "Nichole wrote: Indeed, I would go further and say that this kind of claim -- that there is something inherent in women's writing that makes it female -- is not only problematic, but actively danger..."
When did I use the word 'inherent'?

[Rose]

Tonya wrote: "I missed all of this back in February, so have just read the entire conversation. And I have to say, Rosabeatrice, I understand and agree with what you have said. Just about everything.

Thank you, Tonya. No, although I usually choose the woman, I don't always.
Nichole: I never used the word 'inherent' and I really don't think it's dangerous to say there's a female style. I get the impression that you think that 'female' style means 'inferior' style and sticking women into a ghetto.

I find it difficult to believe that so few of you understand me. You women seem to be afraid to identify with women. Am I correct? Are you really so eager to accepted as being as good as a man and are you really so unaware of how good a woman can be?

[Joan]

What in the world does enjoying a book have to do with one's gender? These man/woman comparisons seem rather naive. Writers are people, they write from their imaginations, they invent their characters, both men and women frequently have protagonists of the opposite sex.

[Ann D]

Agreed, Joan. I've been through women's lib a long time ago. It had its place. Now I just want to judge a book on its merits.

[Rose]

Women's lib has had its place?
I have to say I don't think any of you understood anything I said. And, at my age, I really am not naive.
This group is a big disappointment to me.

[Rose]

Take a look at the site for the National Organization for Women. The struggle for equal rights for women is far from over. Women like you are the proof of that.