Comments on: shakespeare’s daughters

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:04:31 +0000

This topic makes my blood boil. And, though some may disagree with me, I liken it to the idea of “serious” literature versus everything else. Never mind that more literary fiction is written by men only because publishers classify their books that way and not because it is actually true, but when did books become about elitism and classism? Okay, since the beginning of time – but I still hate it. I feel like genre fiction and women’s fiction is looked down upon – and not just by men. I am shocked when people I meet are appalled that I like both Katherine Dunn AND Jennifer Weiner. There is room for everyone. What are all these hang ups about?

By: JP

JP — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:50:42 +0000

I don’t think it matters. I think your work defines you. I know more mediocre male writers than I do female, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t read some great stuff by both. But then, I feel, pardon the (bad) pun, rather neutered in this argument, because I am white, male, born from affluence. I say that if a woman, or an african-american, or a gay, or a transgendered lobster feels marginalized by the culture, they probably are…the real difference is not letting that matter. A whole lot of progress has been made, I hope, but I don’t think Woolf or Dickinson or Austen, or even Toni Morrison would find the climate the same were they to start now.

Do you really believe that literatures are separate? To me, they are like pizza, or wine…bad, or good. I don’t even really “see” gender or race when I read anymore, unless I sense from the writer that that is the subject on which they want me to focus. Perhaps I am yet, naive…

By: Cat

Cat — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:13:02 +0000

New design! Wow

By: Buffy

Buffy — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:49:50 +0000

Thanks for your comment Michael.

I think it’s difficult for any writer to escape the pigeon hole once they’ve published. It’s why people like Nora Roberts use pseudonyms when they deviate from their expected genre and why Nicholas Sparks still writes romance.

As to women’s writing…

Growing up, I witnessed some serious female oppression. That may sound dramatic, but when you hear the phrase ‘women should be seen and not heard’ and see it put into practice, there’s no other way to paint it.

I think what you say is ideal. Why not just write as a human being? But that’s a lot easier to do when you don’t come from a history of marginalisation, or from an upbringing where one type of human is seen as superior to another. I think I understand what you mean by ‘ghetto-ising’. And that’s something I try not to do.

Re: critical assumptions – I do think there’s a culture of looking at a work like “The Things They Carried” (i.e. war) differently than, say, “Excellent Women” (or housewivery). I’ve done it myself and it makes me question: Do some women writers feel the need to ‘masculine-up’ their writing in order to be taken more seriously?

Of course this takes us back to what you say…should any of this really matter? I guess that’s the question. Should it? And, to what extent?

By: michael

michael — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:22:05 +0000

Isn’t that sort of ghetto-ising yourself? Why not just write as a human being with whatever qualities are a part of your specific identity about any given subject and leave it at that? Better than climbing into a pigeon hole.