# Writing A Female Protagonist As A Man (and vice versa)



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

Just sort of an open-ended musing...

My wife recently made a comment along the lines of she could always tell right away even without knowing the author's name, etc the gender of the author, and how it was particularly obvious when it was a man writing from the POV of a woman. Her words were something like "men writing as women always resort to having the female character as either a sexual being or a sexless one - it's either a variation of a mother or a variation of an object of lust and there's not much in between. It never feels all the way believable."

Naturally that pissed me off because whenever I write female characters I try to give them as much depth as I would male ones. However, looking back at my recent work (in which I have with some degree of intention tried to get out of my comfort zone of a young-ish, white male protagonist) and also that of other male writers, I kind of see her point. In my view it's not so much that I think male writers don't usually try to give female characters depth. Rather its that they over-think the possible ramifications of 'getting it wrong' and end up overcompensating. 

My hypothesis on this is what happens is they then start to worry about portraying women inaccurately and either shut off their sexuality entirely through portraying them as elderly, infirm, children or just plain disinterested - or they resort to classic 'femme fatale' types who, in spite of any strength they may have as characters, do not accurately portray the 'average woman'. 

In short, a lot of overcompensating and ham-handedness. 

I'm not sure if this is an issue for women writing as men - possibly not so much as there tends to be less concern as to how men are portrayed in the media - but what I am really interested in is to hear from other writers on how they go about convincingly portraying a character of a different gender? Or any character outside of one's demographic in general, for that matter? Not talking about female elves or murderers or creepy little girls, etc, but attempts at capturing true-to-life regular, adult folks.

What examples are out there of this being successfully done? I can think of a few I think are decent, but would like other opinions.

The main character in my WIP is a woman, and it is the first serious attempt I have made to write a full-fleshed novel told from that POV. It is definitely more challenging. Writing it has really brought to my attention how little I know about what the academic crowd might call 'women's issues'. For the most part, its not so bad since on a higher level  I don't really feel there is such a huge gulf between women and men (perhaps others may disagree with that statement) and to believe otherwise is to fall into the exact trap one is trying to avoid. The superficial details are tough as expected. I find myself constantly googling various terms for women's clothing, watching make up being applied, observing the women I work with, that sort of thing. Which is sort of fun, I guess. 

The larger question for me is whether it is really possible for a man to portray a 'normal woman' as well as a female writer can, all other things being equal, or if there is always going to be some kind of barrier to acquiring a full understanding across gender lines?


----------



## bdcharles (Nov 6, 2017)

Ah but the real acid test is whether she said _your _female characters are that way  One of my favourite protagonists is Lyra from _His Dark Materials_ (particularly book 1). Applies to the antagonist too, Mrs. Coulter. But yes, particularly in early draft writing in crit groups, but also in pubbed works too, you can sense the glaring gaps in their understanding, and their scrambled efforts to bridge them wihle trying to make the character not too much this and just enough that. I think writers must be sensitive to things - not consciously, but as part of their DNA. I think they may struggle if they're not.

My WIPs have a female main character, and several female supporting chars (male ones too). For some reason I don't _think _I have cliched them out too much (could be wrong; extracts in speculative fiction section under prose writers/members workshop if you wanna check em out, hint hint), while retaining some of their femininity. I think it comes from a lifetime of being around women. Yep, that sounds creepy, but seriously, women have always been a major part of my life whereas the A1 type alpha male, and even the "typical guy" was very much a stranger to me. I cannot write that sort of character to save my life, apart from my book 1 antagonist that is. Then again he is more of a try-hard and anyway, he DIES*.



* or does he?


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 6, 2017)

In my experience the average woman IS plain disinterested AH HAHA. 

In all seriousness though, that is the experience of alot of (socially awkward)  writers. So they just write what they know. 



> The larger question for me is whether it is really possible for a man to portray a 'normal woman' as well as a female writer can, all other things being equal, or if there is always going to be some kind of barrier to acquiring a full understanding across gender lines?



The entire question assumes people will read a male written work the same way they will a female one. Meaning any "unwomanly" traits a female character has will get put down to "Course, he's a male writer, he doesn't get it", but when a woman writes the same thing it's always going to be seen as a "legit" expression of womanhood. This is the author function at work. 

Men throughout history have seen uncontrolled female sexuality as threatening and dangerous for fear of being cuckolded (unknowingly raising another man's child). Which is where the Madonna/Whore complex comes from, which is what your wife is referring to.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Nov 6, 2017)

I have experimented with this. I wrote two short stories based on my first ever female protagonist. Needless to say, it wasn't easy. I did a lot of research in the planning stage, and when I started writing the pieces, I gave as much detail as I could all while retaining my writing style. Years ago, I would have never considered using a female protagonist, but I decided to start trying out new kinds of characters. Perhaps this is how we grow.

-JJB


----------



## midnightpoet (Nov 6, 2017)

There have been other threads on this topic, one said write characters as human beings.  I have had success at this, one of my published stories has a female protagonist. Of course, gender roles have been changing - and there's no reason you couldn't have a female as a auto mechanic or a male as a florist. We have pre-conceived ideas on how the different genders act.  Write your characters as you imagine them, with all their faults and quirks.  Turning pre-conceived notions on their head just might help you get published.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 6, 2017)

I'd sure like to know what the "average woman" looks like, how she sounds, what she feels, etc. just as much as I'd like to know the same things about the 'average man'.

Striving to portray the 'average' will just get you characters with no depth, or individuality. I can write from a female perspective just as I can write from the perspective of a serial killer, a gang-banger, a dog, an alien, a butcher, a baker, or a candle-stick maker. I do that by putting myself -- and by extension my readers -- inside the head of the character whatever their proclivity, or gender, or species. By trying to figure out how 'a woman' would think or react in a given situation the writer puts himself in a corner from the start. You've already separated yourself from your character and created the distance you are trying to avoid.

You don't have to know women to know how your character will behave, all you need is to know your character. Be true to her and everything else will fall into place.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 6, 2017)

It's an interesting observation to think about (how some male authors might write a female character as either sexless, or sexual, but not in between).

I've heard some female readers complain that male authors sometimes write female characters who sound like just "men with boobs". I've also read a few female authors who, in my opinion, were imbuing their male characters with a bit more femininity than I felt the characters should have. 

I remember one female author's male character—a teenage boy—stopping in front of a window and frowning at the shape of his _hips_, of all things. This would've made sense, had his character been preoccupied with his body shape or something, but up until this point he wasn't—it just seemed like a random, out-of-character moment. That, I believe, is the most important part: to make sure that things stay in character, regardless of their gender (or even species).

Like those above me have pointed out, as long as you stay true to the character's nature, gender notions can mostly be ignored. The problem likely arises when you start to think, "Oh, my character's a female, so I should have her do _this_ . . . "

But, instead, if you think something like, "Oh, my character grew up poor, so she'd probably feel some resentment here toward this other character's wealthy upbringing . . . ", then you're probably on the right track. :encouragement:


----------



## andrewclunn (Nov 6, 2017)

The protagonist in my (as of yet unshared) novel in progress is female.  Of course, by being of a younger age, she probably sidesteps these issues.  I mean Scout from To Kill A Mockingbird likely "doesn't count" as she's too young for this to apply.  Of course when women write female leads, the obvious Mary Sueing and required love triangle bullshit often follow.  It's more likely that most authors suck at writing fleshed out believable characters, and men and women just tend to screw it up in different ways.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I'd sure like to know what the "average woman" looks like, how she sounds, what she feels, etc. just as much as I'd like to know the same things about the 'average man'.
> 
> Striving to portray the 'average' will just get you characters with no depth, or individuality. I can write from a female perspective just as I can write from the perspective of a serial killer, a gang-banger, a dog, an alien, a butcher, a baker, or a candle-stick maker. I do that by putting myself -- and by extension my readers -- inside the head of the character whatever their proclivity, or gender, or species. By trying to figure out how 'a woman' would think or react in a given situation the writer puts himself in a corner from the start. You've already separated yourself from your character and created the distance you are trying to avoid.
> 
> You don't have to know women to know how your character will behave, all you need is to know your character. Be true to her and everything else will fall into place.



By “average” I am really meaning “typical” or  “ordinary” in the sense of how others/society might see them (hence quote marks) and I strongly disagree that striving to capture ordinary people results in lack of depth. The Everyman (or Everywoman, in this case) is a mainstay of fiction going back for quite some time. In any event, the value of the character type is not the question. The point in question is the degree to which one can capture people across a “gender gap”. 

I appreciate your comment that the best way to do this is to put oneself inside the head of said character. My question, in case it wasn’t clear, was on how best to do that - how to “know your character” when their gender, sexuality, and thus their entire experience of the world is different. I do not think it to be the same as putting oneself in the head of a male character. To say so would seem to ignore all the issues particular to women. 

Here’s an example. Not a great one, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway because it demonstrates quite well I think the difference between knowing something and knowing ABOUT something. Menstruation. As I guy I obviously don’t do it. I know what it is, how it works, and the gist of its impacts. I know it gives some people cramps, etc. But there’s no way I can possibly know what those cramps really feel like, what a complete pain in the butt it must be to have to deal with every month, etc. I only know what I’m told. Everything about that subject for me is going to be second hand, derived from somebody else’s take. Essentially this removes my ability to ever provide a “fresh take” on it, because I am going to be reliant on how somebody else explains it to me.

Can I simply avoid mentioning it in my book? Sure - and you can bet that I am avoiding it like hell - but in avoiding or paying only lip service to a fairly fundamental (and universal) aspect of femininity I am limited in my perspective in the same way I would be if I tried to write about something that only probably makes sense to experience and that I cannot, fundamentally, ever experience. This is the sort of thing I am talking about when I speak of “walls” and I am interested on how others manage to work around them, that’s all.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 6, 2017)

I ask a girlfriend or a wife. Either are experts. I know the basics, but if I need a detail I'm unsure of I ask. Same with chemical hair processes or other witchcraft. But that stuff is easy, factual stuff. The difficult things are like beaten wives and things. I mean as a male I'd just pick up a bat, wait for them to fall asleep. But to get a 'real' reaction requires imagination. I'm not even sure I'm up to it, but I think that's what it takes. Like getting into character as an actor.


----------



## MPhillip (Nov 6, 2017)

The humanistic approach might the easiest and most effective way for a male to write a female, or a female writing a male, POV because men and women are people.  Make characters people and write about them.

Both sexes, for the most part, have hair, eyes, teeth, feet, hands, and most of us have belly buttons.  

We all get upset, angry, delirious, silly, & happy, and almost all of us get so damn sad, sometimes, we shed tears.

Dark chocolate infused beer is our favorite food group with the few exceptions being those who abhor vacuum cleaners.

When a character is built we seldom build her/him with all of, or exclusively with, our own characteristics.  We stuff all kinds of quirks and everyday ho-hum attributes in there.  Sometimes a feminine characteristic is put into a masculine character or a masculine characteristic is given to a feminine character.  

Men cry and mince, women spit and cuss, men put on makeup, women shave ... I mean why worry about the man or woman of it?  Writing a story with interesting characters, characters readers love or hate, or even laugh at, will probably garner a larger audience. 

All that said in defense of men writing a woman's POV, or vice versa, I agree there are a lot of feeble attempts to do so that end up as pathetic caricatures.  That's the kind of writing I'd like to avoid.  

If a (male) writer works from a belief that they cannot write a specific (female) POV or character well without having experienced it, then there are two likely solutions:  don't write female POV or characters, or spend time learning how to be a woman.  

Argue for or against for any approach, but it probably comes down to something as simple as-_will the readers enjoy the story?_


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

MPhillip said:


> The humanistic approach might the easiest and most effective way for a male to write a female, or a female writing a male, POV because men and women are people.  Make characters people and write about them.
> 
> Both sexes, for the most part, have hair, eyes, teeth, feet, hands, and most of us have belly buttons.
> 
> ...



There are definitely similarities and as stated I do believe on a very fundamental level we are all the same, just as on a very superficial level we are all entirely different. So I’m effectively talking about the gray area in between. The places a writer should go in order to establish realism and depth but where mistakes can result in poorly constructed characters.

I appreciate all the comments. To a degree writing outside of ones natural comfort zone is something I think is always going to be hard by definition. There is a reason, after all, that most of us start writing autobiographical or semi autobiographical stuff. So it’s not that I feel like I’m overthinking nor under thinking this challenge. I am simply interested as to specifics as to how other writers go about putting themselves in the proverbial shoes of people who are not like them. Women in this case are my focus, but one could just as easily discuss the matter in terms of race, sexual orientation, disability status, nationality, etc. I would, I suspect, have a similar degree of struggle writing a book a about a homosexual man - though of course the exact nature of those would be entirely different. 

Another one of my WIPs has a central character who is an African American single mother who is also a cop. So even further removed from myself background-wise. I have not got far enough into that story to encounter any issues and it’s straight genre fiction anyway so I’m less concerned. 

the salient point is that while I am exploring alternative protagonists largely for reasons of personal challenge and a desire to bring lesser used voices into fiction I am still concerned about accurate portrayals that don’t, as delightfully put, result in ‘men with boobs’. Hence the thread. 

I recall reading about Stephen King and the writing of Carrie and how he struggled with getting to grips with the world of teenage girls, so it sounds like this is probably a fairly common difficulty. I did read that book and found the character to be okay, just okay, as a reader, but I am unsure if even King was able to truly get comfortable. He mentions in interviews not really liking her, which leads me to suspect the answer to my question is that no, it’s probably not really possible to get to that place of complete understanding.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 6, 2017)

I don't think there are any specific techniques you can use beyond those you would employ to write about someone you are familiar with. Some writers write character sketches, some write entire biographies, some create their characters as they go. Whichever method the writer typically uses will be the one that will work for a character different from him/herself. 

Life-like characters have backgrounds and experiences beyond the story in which they exist. How they behave, and what they say in the story is a result of those backgrounds and experiences. Since those life-stories differ based on ethnicity, gender, age, environment, etc. the result will be a unique character. The protagonist in my current WIP is a female journalist, a teenage runaway from an abusive home, twice married and divorced, and the target of a serial killer. There's no technique that will get me inside her head. If I try to think about how a woman would react to meeting her estranged brother for the first time in 25 years, I'm going to screw it up because there's no one way the 'average' woman would react to that. Instead, when I wrote that scene I already knew her background, and all the crap she'd been through. I knew her as a person, not as an example of her gender. I knew how she would react. And it wasn't like a "man-with-boobs".

There's no technique for writing a good, honest character, just as there's no technique for writing the perfect sentence.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I don't think there are any specific techniques you can use beyond those you would employ employ to write about someone you are familiar with. Some writers write character sketches, some write entire biographies, some create their characters as they go. Whichever method the writer typically uses will be the one that will work for a character different from him/herself.
> 
> Life-like characters have backgrounds and experiences beyond the story in which they exist. How they behave, and what they say in the story is a result of those backgrounds and experiences. Since those life-stories differ based on ethnicity, gender, age, environment, etc. the result will be a unique character. The protagonist in my current WIP is a female journalist, a teenage runaway from an abusive home, twice married and divorced, and the target of a serial killer. There's no technique that will get me inside her head. If I try to think about how a woman would react to meeting her estranged brother for the first time in 25 years, I'm going to screw it up because there's no one way the 'average' woman would react to that. Instead, when I wrote that scene I already knew her background, and all the crap she'd been through. I knew her as a person, not as an example of her gender. I knew how she would react. And it wasn't like a "man-with-boobs".
> 
> There's no technique for writing a good, honest character, just as there's no technique for writing the perfect sentence.



I think that’s some good advice, Terry. Thank you. I would be interested to know how women reacted to the character you describe. What provided you with the certainty that you avoided the MWB issue?

A way of approaching this I thought of may be to try to find a real life version of the character from which to draw influence and learn about. A kind of muse, even. In a way I already do this - theres always a “face” to the character borrowed from somewhere. The biggest problem with that is that I do not know a vast number of women outside of my immediate family and the ones I do it isn’t the sort of relationship where I can ask particularly personal questions without getting weird looks. Alas.

Ultimately it still seems like there is a certain degree of BSing involved, but hey - that’s fiction.


----------



## Birb (Nov 6, 2017)

For me, I just write the character. I don't think I ever have seen female characters written by men be glaringly obvious as to their writer's gender and honestly, if you focus on the character themselves rather then the gender it shouldn't be much of a problem (I don't think, then again I'm newer at this). I think the biggest issue someone would have would be to overthink how a woman would think/act, just go by your own experience or by how you think that character would act and you'll be fine.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

Birb said:


> For me, I just write the character. I don't think I ever have seen female characters written by men be glaringly obvious as to their writer's gender and honestly, if you focus on the character themselves rather then the gender it shouldn't be much of a problem (I don't think, then again I'm newer at this). I think the biggest issue someone would have would be to overthink how a woman would think/act, just go by your own experience or by how you think that character would act and you'll be fine.



The thing is, and it’s a common issue I have to various responses on the thread, is that you speak as though “the character” is something distinct from “the gender”, or like caring about gender is as trivial as caring about, I don’t know, shoe size or color of ones eyes. I don’t think that it is that simple.

Science tells us that our gender and, by extension, our sexuality are the primary motivating forces for much of our behavior. It’s not a matter of sex as a physical act but sex/reproduction as a subconscious driver for every value we have. With that in mind it seems absurd to believe one could write a convincing character while not bringing in their gender and filtering their personality and actions through some aspect of their sexuality - however it is manifested.

I am not saying we should harp on about it or anything, unless it’s “that kind of book” I don’t care for aggressive sexuality in writing much. However there is no doubt in my mind that everything a man or a woman does is influenced as much by the fact they are a man or a woman and what that means as anything else. So it needs to be there.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 6, 2017)

Which characteristic has the most influence on a person's behavior? Gender? Race? Age? Culture? Environmental influences (upbringing, economic status, etc.)? Education?

I sure can't answer that for every person (character), so if I focus on one, I'm running the risk of creating a cardboard cut-out instead of a character. Now, I have two-dimensional characters in my writing. Some of my secondary and fringe players are nothing but stereotypes; the grouchy bartender, the flustered young cop, the ditzy-bitchy best friend, and more. But, the characters I want my readers to really care about, really love or really hate, I know more about them than how their gender effects their behavior. That'll be part of what makes them who they are, but only a part, neither more nor less important to their make-up than their age, race, or education level.


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 6, 2017)

> the salient point is that while I am exploring alternative protagonists largely for reasons of personal challenge and a desire to bring lesser used voices into fiction I am still concerned about accurate portrayals that don’t, as delightfully put, result in ‘men with boobs’. Hence the thread.



‘Men with boobs’ implies there are behaviours that are off limits or not believable in women. Which last I checked is sexist stereotyping.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 6, 2017)

"...you can milk anything with nipples."


----------



## bdcharles (Nov 6, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> ‘Men with boobs’ implies there are behaviours that are off limits or not believable in women. Which last I checked is sexist stereotyping.



Hiya. Friendly reminder: let's keep the insinuations about others out of the forum please. Ta.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Which characteristic has the most influence on a person's behavior? Gender? Race? Age? Culture? Environmental influences (upbringing, economic status, etc.)? Education?
> 
> I sure can't answer that for every person (character), so if I focus on one, I'm running the risk of creating a cardboard cut-out instead of a character. Now, I have two-dimensional characters in my writing. Some of my secondary and fringe players are nothing but stereotypes; the grouchy bartender, the flustered young cop, the ditzy-bitchy best friend, and more. But, the characters I want my readers to really care about, really love or really hate, I know more about them than how their gender effects their behavior. That'll be part of what makes them who they are, but only a part, neither more nor less important to their make-up than their age, race, or education level.



I see your point. My response to it would be to again reiterate that science states that gender/sexuality influences all behavior as it is ingrained both in our genetic material and also in our culture - so I guess I still don't understand a statement like "I know more about them then how their gender influences their behavior" because I believe the evidence and in fact most anecdotal observation shows that gender is ingrained in all aspects of behavior and is inescapable. Some people might not agree with that view. Certainly it operates far more on a subconscious level than a conscious one. I don't think about being 'a man' very often, but there's no doubt the symptoms of it are nearly always there and its impacts constant - from affecting how I interact with other groups (other men, women, kids - I'm pretty tall so find I can easily intimidate a small person without meaning to) to what words and language I use, to what jobs are more likely to hire me. Sure there's a lot of sexism there, most of it obscured in some way, but that's the world we live in and as such I would want to incorporate that into the lives of my characters.

That being said I do absolutely understand that to obsess over creating the perfect rendition of any given character 'type' is a losing battle. We are, after all, in the business of telling stories not conducting case studies or building androids. My hope was - is - to achieve a positive reaction from readership through the creation of well-rounded characters. Reading these perspectives is somewhat comforting as it sounds like it hasn't been an issue that has inhibited anybody's success.



Annoying kid said:


> ‘Men with boobs’ implies there are behaviours that are off limits or not believable in women. Which last I checked is sexist stereotyping.



There's a fine but important line between recognizing differences/patterns and stereotyping. Typically the difference is stereotypes tend to involve use of cliches and also tend to be disprovable (or at least not provable) with available contemporary data. A stereotype would be to say "women are better at cooking than men" or "women are weaker than men". It's false, and a worn out cliche. I completely refute that I or anybody yet to comment so far has come anywhere close to that. 

The "men with boobs" was not coined by me, but my interpretation of it is to recognize that there is a difference between female characters that check all the boxes of women but are not believable as such due to continuing to exhibit non-typical, perhaps male, reactions and behaviors. Obviously it is subjective. All of this is subjective. However since I am a man and (I think) you are too, I believe neither of us is in a position to judge what 'real women' are like. That was the whole reason I started this thread. If you have a problem with it I totally understand. Feel free to move on


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 6, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Here’s an example. Not a great one, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway because it demonstrates quite well I think the difference between knowing something and knowing ABOUT something. Menstruation. As I guy I obviously don’t do it. I know what it is, how it works, and the gist of its impacts. I know it gives some people cramps, etc. But there’s no way I can possibly know what those cramps really feel like, what a complete pain in the butt it must be to have to deal with every month, etc. I only know what I’m told. Everything about that subject for me is going to be second hand, derived from somebody else’s take. Essentially this removes my ability to ever provide a “fresh take” on it, because I am going to be reliant on how somebody else explains it to me.



I think what Terry was saying is that we shouldn't treat male or female characters any different. Far too often beginning writers over think male/female differences to the point that they feel obligated to address every difference (such as menstrual cycles or morning wood). Unless it's important to the story, there's no point in drawing attention to those things because that's what you'll end up with--your reader's attention being drawn away from the story and making things awkward. Address that stuff as needed. Otherwise just treat them as human beings. Men and women usually aren't that different once you get past genitalia.


----------



## andrewclunn (Nov 6, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> ‘Men with boobs’ implies there are behaviours that are off limits or not believable in women. Which last I checked is sexist stereotyping.



I think we can all agree that "men with boobs" is unnecessary though.  Instead, why not chicks with... nevermind.


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 6, 2017)

> perhaps male, reactions and behaviors.



Like what? What reactions and behaviours can you call male? I've yet to come across someone who invoked the man with boobs trope who actually listed what behaviours they thought were male and female.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

J Anfinson said:


> I think what Terry was saying is that we shouldn't treat male or female characters any different. Far too often beginning writers over think male/female differences to the point that they feel obligated to address every difference (such as menstrual cycles or morning wood). Unless it's important to the story, there's no point in drawing attention to those things because that's what you'll end up with--your reader's attention being drawn away from the story and making things awkward. Address that stuff as needed. Otherwise just treat them as human beings. Men and women usually aren't that different once you get past genitalia.



Yeah, I definitely hate it when 'icky stuff' is needlessly dropped into stories that do not warrant it. I recall a few months back reading a horror short story by a writer (who I won't name) who felt the need to include a pretty graphic female masturbation scene in the middle of a ghost story. Why? Hell knows. It didn't add to the character, at least not for me. It didn't incorporate any backstory or help me to understand her better. Then there's all those godawful eighties and nineties slasher movies with naked women covered in blood. Utter garbage.

That said, I totally disagree with your statement that men and women are the same aside from genitalia. Putting aside the fact that there are numerous physiological differences beyond genitals, it's just not true from the more relevant aspect of experience. It _should _be that way, of course. God willing perhaps some day it _could _be that way.

 But it _is not that way right now. 

_As fiction writers I think we have a responsibility to accurately portray the world as it is right now - or was at some point in time if writing historical fiction. One cannot seriously say that the experience of an average woman drinking in a nightclub or bar is the same as for a man. Or walking down a street at night. Or running for elected office. 

Society treats men and women differently. I'm not wishing to 'go there' on social commentary because it's an endless debacle, but there are reasons most young women, but very few young men, leave the house with some form of rape deterrent. It has nothing to do with differences in genitalia. It has everything to do with societal attitudes and culture and the vast chasm that exists between 'the female experience' and 'the male experience'


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> Like what? What reactions and behaviours can you call male? I've yet to come across someone who invoked the man with boobs trope who actually listed what behaviours they thought were male and female.



Well, first of all it's not a case of listing things. I mentioned before it is subjective - My wife didn't go out of her way to invent the view that 'you could just tell'. If I could list off what behaviors are intrinsically male but not female I would have not needed to start this thread. It is, what Don Rumsfeld might have called, 'a known unknown'. I can't tell you what is or is not typically male behavior any more than I can tell you why my dog barks at the mailman. I just know she does, and that it has something to do with her nature.

If I had to guess - and it's a complete guess - I would imagine that one theory might be something like a female character with a tendency toward physical aggression. Typically women are not as physically aggressive as men. Now is that true for all women? Certainly not - psychos come with all kinds of equipment. Is that a signal for a more masculine character? I think it might be sometimes, but I doubt it's all of what she meant. 

Speaking for myself, I am not a violent person at all - so its hard for me to swallow a theory that has me as 'less of a man' for not having this 'manly trait' - but that's the best I got for ya. That and possibly a woman who is sexually dominant. That's a pretty typical (though increasingly hackneyed) feature of Hollywood's notion of 'man with boobs'. 

Again, this is not any part of a list or something I wish to be held to the proverbial fire for - nor once again insulted by insinuation that I am some kind of sexist stereotype-merchant by suggesting. It's simply an idea given for the purposes of speculation and, maybe, polite discussion. I am quite sure unrealistic 'male' portrayals of women are significantly more complex in foundation than just whether they might or might not be violent horn-dogs. Perhaps its the way they speak. Perhaps its the way they button their pants. I have no idea, that's why I wanted to explore it on the forum.

And no, when I asked my wife couldn't tell me what gave her those feelings either. She is not obliged to. Feelings do not need to be rationally justified.


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 6, 2017)

Von Bradstein, I don't see how you can use terms like "average/typical woman" in your argument and then "man with boobs" to cover those who don't  conform to what that is.


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 6, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Society treats men and women differently. I'm not wishing to 'go there' on social commentary because it's an endless debacle, but there are reasons most young women, but very few young men, leave the house with some form of rape deterrent. It has nothing to do with differences in genitalia. It has everything to do with societal attitudes and culture and the vast chasm that exists between 'the female experience' and 'the male experience'



Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it's not. Not all little girls have tea parties and not every little boy plays with G.I. Joes. I think there's a difference between using our imagination to create a person based on a compilation of other people we've observed (perhaps the opposite sex), and trying way too hard to write a male or female and winding up with a cliche. Socializing and studying is probally the best way to learn how to write about all the things we don't know.


----------



## LeeC (Nov 6, 2017)

I think Terry and Jake had excellent advice, but seeing this thread continuing to popup with the usual dichotomy of pontificating, I humorously asked my wife.

So, if you want it straight from the horses mouth, she says the underlying differentiation is that women are smarter. 

Seriously, the several important women in my book are modeled after persons I have known well, that exhibited character traits I wanted to employ for contrast and a bit of conflict. Otherwise they are simply persons, the same as male characters. Though, I must admit that, as Kevin noted, the males are more commonly the ones that pick up a bat


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> Von Bradstein, I don't see how you can use terms like "average/typical woman" in your argument and then "man with boobs" to cover those who don't conform to what that is.



I didn't. They're two separate things. It's entirely possible to have a non-average woman who is nevertheless portrayed convincingly as a woman. I have no problem with that.

I simply wanted to focus on 'the average woman' as that is my current WIP. Man With Boobs is not my phrase, and I somewhat regret using it now, but the suggestion was as a shorthand for what could otherwise be described as kind of gender blackface: i.e a fundamentally male character given a token female name and physique but essentially could be just as easily a man in drag and one would not really know the difference.

 I am hesitant about using it as an example as I do not know enough about the character, but certainly back in my day of early PC gaming where the games did not possess much in the way of cut-scenes and 'story',  a character like Lara Croft from Tomb Raider might be an example of an Indiana Jones With Boobs. If I have grossly misrepresented Ms. Croft and she in fact is a fully fleshed out character and totally believable as a woman then I apologize in advance, but it always seemed to me the creators of that game used her rather two dimensionally.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

J Anfinson said:


> Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it's not. Not all little girls have tea parties and not every little boy plays with G.I. Joes. I think there's a difference between using our imagination to create a person based on a compilation of other people we've observed (perhaps the opposite sex), and trying way too hard to write a male or female and winding up with a cliche. Socializing and studying is probally the best way to learn how to write about all the things we don't know.



Not to belabor the point, but it's not about tea parties and GI joes. It's about deeper cultural attitudes and how people - men and women - respond to them in terms of behavior, language, mindset, etc. Of course there are exceptions always. But the disagreement was with what I read as a major over-simplification of gender.

I can easily figure out with minimal observation or research what fads and fashions are popular with women and what are not. I can also easily subvert that, and I intend to. That part isn't difficult to nail. The aspect I am struggling with is developing a 'female voice' which would be palatable to a female reader and not identify me as a guy trying his best - and that is what I wanted to ask about in this thread. I agree that socializing and studying is probably the best way. Probably, in fact, the only way. Having give the subject more thought, I would also think reading books written about women by women would help. Perhaps some memoir stuff. 

As mentioned, it has the fundamental flaw of being outside of direct experience, but what can you do? 

Again I appreciate the feedback.


----------



## Jon M (Nov 6, 2017)

“developing a female voice which would be palatable to a female reader” might be the thing getting you turned around. I never write characters thinking about how best to portray their race or demographic. I think that would result in a lot of surface-level insights, cliches. Instead I think about any special challenges a character might have to face as a result of their race or gender and how that impacts their life, and how they live around that, and then I put all of that in the back of my head and sorta forget about it, and write about myself. 

Disclaimer: my characters might really suck.


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 6, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Not to belabor the point, but it's not about 'tea parties and GI joes'. It's about cultural attitudes and how people - men and women - respond to them. Of course there are exceptions always. But the disagreement was with the over-simplification of gender.



You're right, it's not about tea parties and gi joes. I was just using that as an example of cultural expectation and how we can't fit men or women into neat little packages. That said, if you want to show the struggle your female character has with discrimination in the workplace, for example, then I would see it as less creating a female than adding to character and plot. If it doesn't have anything to do with the plot then it's like describing her body: what does it matter? But if it's relevant to the character and what's going on around them then you have my attention and she becomes real. It's not a gender thing. It's whatever makes that person who they are. Does that make sense? Thats all I meant by males and females being no different. I think we all face different challenges but surely we can also relate to those challenges and empathize, at least to some degree. Actually some of the most fascinating characters I can think of turn all those cultural and societal expectations upside down. How about a stay-at-home dad who has relied on his wife for income suddenly loses her to tragedy, forcing him to take on a low paying job at the mall selling beauty products. He has no idea what he's doing but can't afford to fail. Then things get awkward when his new boss, a female, makes a pass at him. Drama and hilarity ensues. Isn't that a little more interesting than a helpless female like we've all seen a thousand times? Yet the roles could easily be reversed. Sorry for blabbing on. Have a good night.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 6, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> The aspect I am struggling with is developing a 'female voice' which would be palatable to a female reader and not identify me as a guy trying his best - and that is what I wanted to ask about in this thread.



1. Not try too hard. In the book I just finished half of, the teen female constantly thinks her baby sister is the most adorable thing ever. At some point, I found that implausible. Plus, that never had anything to do with the story. I end up suspecting that the author just wanted to show her as very female about babies, which is the wrong way to build a character.

Anyway, you don't need your female character to be average, you just need her to be possible. In many stories, it's fine to have a token female who is just like your males. Did anyone criticize Ian Fleming for having an implausible male character?

But building characters is important. Old, smart, prejudiced, and even female. As long as you don't try too hard, if you want your females to seem like females, I suspect you can get far enough using a few difference. She talks more, backs down quicker, doesn't like conflict, is more caring, is more socially aware, cries easer, is more affected by her emotions. Men tend to form teams. women form pairs. Men tend to play; women tend to be more practical. Men need to win and are higher in agency.

You can think of your own; our culture does not lack for stereotypes. And did I say the thing about not trying too hard? That goes both ways. I don't mind if a female character loves sports or is the quarterback, but that better be part of the story, not something you do to impress the reader with your creativity.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 6, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. Not try too hard. In the book I just finished half of, the teen female constantly thinks her baby sister is the most adorable thing ever. At some point, I found that implausible. Plus, that never had anything to do with the story. I end up suspecting that the author just wanted to show her as very female about babies, which is wrong.
> 
> Anyway, you don't need your female character to be average, you just need her to be possible. In many stories, it's fine to have a token female who is just like your males. Did anyone criticize Ian Fleming for having an implausible male character?
> 
> ...



Thanks Emma. That was actually very helpful. Yeah, tokenistic liberal-guilt stuff is definitely not what I am going for - just credibility.


----------



## Robbie (Nov 7, 2017)

I do not understand ‘non average woman’ and I certainly don’t know what an ‘average woman’ is. There is gender identity outside of genitalia and there is gender questioning. Biology does not always agree with psychology or gender ideation. I am late to this conservation but just wanted to add that gender is complex or can be. I was born female and have always identified as female but science tells us that there are many who suffer because gender assignment has been handed down by society and therefore some people are expected to _be _a certain way, even though that is not how or who they really are.


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 7, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> I didn't. They're two separate things. It's entirely possible to have a non-average woman who is nevertheless portrayed convincingly as a woman. I have no problem with that.
> 
> I simply wanted to focus on 'the average woman' as that is my current WIP. Man With Boobs is not my phrase, and I somewhat regret using it now, but the suggestion was as a shorthand for what could otherwise be described as kind of gender blackface: i.e a fundamentally male character given a token female name and physique but essentially could be just as easily a man in drag and one would not really know the difference.
> 
> I am hesitant about using it as an example as I do not know enough about the character, but certainly back in my day of early PC gaming where the games did not possess much in the way of cut-scenes and 'story',  a character like Lara Croft from Tomb Raider might be an example of an Indiana Jones With Boobs. If I have grossly misrepresented Ms. Croft and she in fact is a fully fleshed out character and totally believable as a woman then I apologize in advance, but it always seemed to me the creators of that game used her rather two dimensionally.



You should drop the term "man with boobs" altogether. I didn't say YOU were sexist I said the trope is inherently sexist. It's a means of policing female portrayal through shaming language and misgendering. It is much in the same category as "Mary Sue" in that regard. A means to invalidate characters that take up what's seen as male roles, which are often just roles of leadership, dominance, boldness, daring, hyper competence, and skill.  This is what people are labelling as "Mary Sues" and "Men in drag". And by not defining it in concrete terms, by throwing the term out there and leaving it as vague abstract, people create a culture of uncertainty as well as outright fear when writing female characters.  It's gotten to the point where I just regard it as a rite of passage at this point. The character being called some invalidating name just means you've arrived.  

Indiana Jones is more human and vulnerable than the old Lara Croft, who's much closer to a superhero like Batman or Wonder Woman. Now she's just a dull Katniss knock off in the attempt to make her more "believable as a woman".


----------



## Sam (Nov 7, 2017)

Not all women are the same. 

One of the major problems writers encounter when creating a character of the opposite sex, in this case a woman, is trying to think like that gender. What would a woman do, say, or feel in this situation? Those questions are largely useless, because every person is unique. What creeps out one woman, will not even be a speck on the radar of another. 

Therefore, when writing characters of the opposite sex, the question isn't "what would a woman/man do?". 

Rather, it's "what would my character do?".


----------



## Bayview (Nov 7, 2017)

I agree with the focus on writing a complex, interesting character with many traits, one of which happens to be her female gender.

I'd add to that... one of the best ways to avoid perpetuating stereotypes is to include _more than one character_ from the group you're worried you might be stereotyping. If you have only one female character and she's obsessed with fashion, I'm likely to read that as a stereotype, but if you have five female characters and one of them is obsessed with fashion but the others aren't, then it's just a character trait.

I really think a lot of the criticism of female characters comes because so often we're only given one, and people pin all their expectations on that one character. It _is_ hard to write a single character who somehow represents 50% of humanity, so don't do it.

(If we routinely had books/movies with one male character and all the other characters female, we'd start expecting a hell of a lot from that one male character, wouldn't we? We'd look pretty closely at how he represented masculinity and whether the creators got it "right"? But there are loads of male characters in most media, so this isn't really an issue).


----------



## JJBuchholz (Nov 7, 2017)

Sam said:


> Not all women are the same.
> 
> One of the major problems writers encounter when creating a character of the opposite sex, in this case a woman, is trying to think like that gender. What would a woman do, say, or feel in this situation? Those questions are largely useless, because every person is unique. What creeps out one woman, will not even be a speck on the radar of another.
> 
> ...



Nail on the head. I believe this is how it should be done. We need to put ourselves in our character's shoes more often than not, as we know our characters better than anyone.

-JJB


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 7, 2017)

Sam said:


> Not all women are the same.
> 
> One of the major problems writers encounter when creating a character of the opposite sex, in this case a woman, is trying to think like that gender. What would a woman do, say, or feel in this situation? Those questions are largely useless, because every person is unique. What creeps out one woman, will not even be a speck on the radar of another.
> 
> ...



Every person is unique but not every experience is. Certainly culture is built on lack of uniqueness.

Question is less about the inherent qualities of the woman herself and more about the various life events, situations and factors that influence actions, reactions, dialogue, etc. basically the narrative voice - more a product of nurture than nature. If a woman was raised in exactly the same way as a man in a gender neutral society your theory would be correct. As it stands it’s more complex than that. Again I do not disagree so much as take issue with what seems to be over simplification. And more importantly I know a lot of women would.

It’s interesting to me that throughout the course of this discussion it has generally been male contributors who have held to the “men and women are the same” or “men and women are all equally different from one another” arguments and I have not heard that so much from contributors who are (at least obviously so) female. I do not mean this as a slight or to suggest bias for or against any particular viewpoint, but it’s interesting. 

If there were no broad similarities, common interests, experiences along gender lines how do you explain the enduring popularity of a genre like women’s fiction?


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 7, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> You should drop the term "man with boobs" altogether. I didn't say YOU were sexist I said the trope is inherently sexist. It's a means of policing female portrayal through shaming language and misgendering. It is much in the same category as "Mary Sue" in that regard. A means to invalidate characters that take up what's seen as male roles, which are often just roles of leadership, dominance, boldness, daring, hyper competence, and skill.  This is what people are labelling as "Mary Sues" and "Men in drag". And by not defining it in concrete terms, by throwing the term out there and leaving it as vague abstract, people create a culture of uncertainty as well as outright fear when writing female characters.  It's gotten to the point where I just regard it as a rite of passage at this point. The character being called some invalidating name just means you've arrived.
> 
> Indiana Jones is more human and vulnerable than the old Lara Croft, who's much closer to a superhero like Batman or Wonder Woman. Now she's just a dull Katniss knock off in the attempt to make her more "believable as a woman".



By stating that a term I used is sexist you are calling me sexist. Same as if you used a racial slur and I said “hey that’s racist what you just said” I would be implying you as at least a little bit racist. Perhaps you did not mean it, but that’s how it works for most people.

Its no big deal anyway, don’t want civility to degenerate, but just so we’re all clear I don’t have to define every word and phrase and idiom I use in concrete terms. That is, no offense, a ludicrous standard. 

I already stated I did not coin the phrase. The fact that I can derive a meaning from it does not require me to justify it any more than I have a business requiring you to justify what “annoying kid” means “in concrete terms”. 

If you think it or anything else on this subject is inherently sexist then you can ride that train. I am not going to argue on it or get into personal attacks. What I am going to say is that it would be endlessly obvious to the majority of people I did not and do not employ it to shame or demean women, nor did the guy who brought it up. 

It is completely legitimate to criticize the validity of characters. Actually it’s kind of our job here as “writers discussing the craft”. If you find the use of the word “boobs” offensive for some reason then it appears you are in a party of one and there’s probably not a great deal more you can bring to this particular table.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 7, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> You should drop the term "man with boobs" altogether. I didn't say YOU were sexist I said the trope is inherently sexist. It's a means of policing female portrayal through shaming language and misgendering. It is much in the same category as "Mary Sue" in that regard. A means to invalidate characters that take up what's seen as male roles, which are often just roles of leadership, dominance, boldness, daring, hyper competence, and skill.  This is what people are labelling as "Mary Sues" and "Men in drag". And by not defining it in concrete terms, by throwing the term out there and leaving it as vague abstract, people create a culture of uncertainty as well as outright fear when writing female characters.  It's gotten to the point where I just regard it as a rite of passage at this point. The character being called some invalidating name just means you've arrived.
> 
> Indiana Jones is more human and vulnerable than the old Lara Croft, who's much closer to a superhero like Batman or Wonder Woman. Now she's just a dull Katniss knock off in the attempt to make her more "believable as a woman".



I also find it a bit ironic that in the same breath you are lecturing me for using shaming language and trying to police portrayals you are also instructing me to drop the use of terms. Sorry, bit allergic to that sort of thing.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 7, 2017)

I think there has been remarkable consistency in the advice given so far. Most people are suggesting that you do a disservice to your character by focusing on trying develop a "female voice" rather than focusing on writing a well-rounded character who happens to be a woman. No one is saying that gender doesn't add a filter to our life experiences, but there are lots of filters in play that an author needs to account for. If you want to see how another author has accomplished the same thing find books written by men in which the protagonist is female. Stephen King would be a good start with _Gerald's Game_, _Lisey's Story_, or _Doloras Claiborne_.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 7, 2017)

Sam said:


> Not all women are the same.
> 
> One of the major problems writers encounter when creating a character of the opposite sex, in this case a woman, is trying to think like that gender. What would a woman do, say, or feel in this situation? Those questions are largely useless, because every person is unique.



If I change "woman" to "stutterer" (or about any feature), what you just wrote is wrong:

One of the major problems writers encounter, when creating a character who stutters is that they try to think like someone who stutters. What would a stutterer do, say, or feel in this situation? Those questions are largely useless, because every stutterer is unique.

Even if every stutterer is unique (and surely they are different), that advice seems like the opposite of useful.

Of course, there is a default of not stuttering, and we don't get a default for sex. So, if someone wanted to assign male versus female after the book was finished, that might work. But there has to be some value in trying to think about a character as male or female, in at least some books.

(And if sex is assigned before the book is finished, I don't know how that would be avoided.)


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 7, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I think there has been remarkable consistency in the advice given so far. Most people are suggesting that you do a disservice to your character by focusing on trying develop a "female voice" rather than focusing on writing a well-rounded character who happens to be a woman. No one is saying that gender doesn't add a filter to our life experiences, but there are lots of filters in play that an author needs to account for. If you want to see how another author has accomplished the same thing find books written by men in which the protagonist is female. Stephen King would be a good start with _Gerald's Game_, _Lisey's Story_, or _Doloras Claiborne_.



Thanks. Actually I disagree that no one has sought to say it doesn’t - they have and there are various quotes to that effect, which is rather disappointing/concerning - but I can get past it as possibly just misunderstanding. I definitely allow that the better advice (including yours) has been in good faith and has not been to dismiss the issue out of hand but rather to circumvent the problem.

I also think there may be some misunderstanding in that some people may have been led to believe somehow that I am on some kind of crusade or trying to focus on gender as a kind of crutch. This is absolutely not the case. It is just that in trying to create a well rounded character I believe realistic reflection of gender and sexuality should be an active component - especially if one is trying to capture a normal human person (as opposed to an elf fairy, succubus, witch, space alien, etc) - as opposed to something awkwardly avoided, botched or otherwise mishandled. Same with race, nationality, religion and all other things. I think gender also happens to be the one that gets screwed up the most.

I have read Gerald’s Game and found the female lead decent. Delores Claiborne was a difficult one for me because of the writing style, but she was an intrigue. Did not read Lisey. On the whole I’m not convinced by Kings take on women. A decent example of his female leads I think is the woman in the Big Driver novella, but even she I found to be rather sexually cold (then again it was a rape story) so I don’t know if I’d put all my eggs in King’s portrayal. The thing is, I have yet to find anybody who does much better. *sigh*


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 7, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> If there were no broad similarities, common interests, experiences along gender lines how do you explain the enduring popularity of a genre like women’s fiction?


There are experiences that women share that men do not.  Sorry, but I don't buy into idea that all you have to do is write a well rounded character and all is well.

Wrong (IMO)

Cultural influences, attitudes towards sex, social expectations, etc., all shape our behavior and color how we see the world and react to it.  Men and women are indeed trained differently and the world reacts to them differently based solely on sex.  Your character, if you want readers to see them as real, you have to include as much of this as you can into their words and actions.


----------



## Winston (Nov 7, 2017)

I'm not going to repeat it, but there is a quote in the movie "_As Good as It Gets_".  
It stars Jack Nicholson as a nasty, but successful author.  
A fan asks him, "As a man, how do you write so well like a woman?"  Look up the response, if you'd like.


----------



## SueC (Nov 7, 2017)

Interesting question. I imagine you all have heard the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus," (John Gray, 1992). The idea was that when there is a problem, if a woman wants a solution, she goes to a man. If, however, a woman just wants to talk about the problem (and potentially come up with her own solution to it), she goes to another woman. However, I recently had a conversation with my 13 year old granddaughter, who complained that her mother (my daughter) always wanted to fix everything. She felt she couldn't talk to her mom about "stuff" because that was all she wanted to do, identify the problem and resolve it. So, having said that, and with the previous information, I told GD that her mom was solving problems like a man. 

Even though this information is narrow and generalizing, I have found it to be true and have seen evidence of it for years. Most men really believe their role in their female partner's lives are to fix any and all problems. Certainly not talk about it to death, and if a woman expects a man to talk about issues, it doesn't usually bode well. I know from personal experience that all I had to say to my spouse was, "we need to talk" and there suddenly was a myriad of other places he had to be. LOL.

Anyway, my point is that we can write about women who have traditional male characteristics, and visa versa, and still maintain their humanity, their distinctness. I think it is important, though, to understand what most people see as typical behavior for each sex, because only then can we create characters who cross those lines. 

I have three daughters and one son. When my girls were little, and caught in a lie, they were all over the map. "Well, I talked to Jean.... and then we went to the store ... I meant to come straight home, but ... and so on, and if they could blame a younger sister in the mix, all the better. When my son was caught in a lie, he would say, "Yep. I lied. Sorry." Girls (women) can seem more complex that boys, but I think it may just be that we are not as honest as our male counter parts. 

No matter what you want your character to accomplish, I believe it is important to know what you are dealing with. 

I believe you can have women work on road construction, race cars, anything you want, but for god's sake, keep them women! LOL. Easier said than done, right?


----------



## Sam (Nov 7, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Every person is unique but not every experience is. Certainly culture is built on lack of uniqueness.
> 
> Question is less about the inherent qualities of the woman herself and more about the various life events, situations and factors that influence actions, reactions, dialogue, etc. basically the narrative voice - more a product of nurture than nature. If a woman was raised in exactly the same way as a man in a gender neutral society your theory would be correct. As it stands it’s more complex than that. Again I do not disagree so much as take issue with what seems to be over simplification. And more importantly I know a lot of women would.
> 
> ...



Perhaps the above post is indicative of what some writers seem to lack, i.e. reading comprehension. 

For the record, I never said men and women are the same. In point of fact, they are in and of themselves extremely different. Equality is a far broader term, but not at all relevant to the discussion at hand. Instead, you have both missed the point and somehow paradoxically made it as well. Well done. 

Yes, the very argument is that a woman can just as easily like "women's fiction" as another can abhor it. But it is impossible to know which side of the divide she falls on without first asking the question. That same question, or a variation thereof, is what we ask our characters all the time in an effort to flesh them out and give them life beyond words on a page. So just as one woman loves women's fiction, but another detests it, our characters -- male or female -- will feel a particular way depending on how we wish to characterise them. 

Therefore, whether or not the women in our lives all adore women's fiction, it is demonstrably untrue to say that as a result of this our female character will also like women's fiction. She could be in that one per cent of women who would rather shove sharp objects into their eyes than read in that genre. 

It all depends on what sort of a person we envision our female character to be.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 7, 2017)

Sam said:


> Perhaps the above post is indicative of what some writers seem to lack, i.e. reading comprehension.
> 
> For the record, I never said men and women are the same. In point of fact, they are in and of themselves extremely different. Equality is a far broader term, but not at all relevant to the discussion at hand. Instead, you have both missed the point and somehow paradoxically made it as well. Well done.



Hi Sam,

Not a fan of the 'well done' stuff, nor what came across as a veiled attack on reading ability, but I will smile and move on to the substance. Regarding that substance, please refer to my previous post, specifically the underlined area. I think you will find that I did not misread or misunderstand your post, but that you may - perhaps - have misread mine. 



VonBradstein said:


> It’s interesting to me that throughout the course of this discussion it has generally been male contributors who have held to the “men and women are the same” *or “men and women are all equally different from one another” arguments* and I have not heard that so much from contributors who are (at least obviously so) female. I do not mean this as a slight or to suggest bias for or against any particular viewpoint, but it’s interesting.



And, just so you know, that was not necessarily targeted solely at your post. But it would seem you are in the latter camp of stating that all folks are different from each other and that essentially variations within characters are not dictated by genre but by the writer's characterization. Which is an okay point to make. I allowed for it.

Regarding this...



Sam said:


> Yes, the very argument is that a woman can just as easily like "women's fiction" as another can abhor it. But it is impossible to know which side of the divide she falls on without first asking the question. That same question, or a variation thereof, is what we ask our characters all the time in an effort to flesh them out and give them life beyond words on a page. So just as one woman loves women's fiction, but another detests it, our characters -- male or female -- will feel a particular way depending on how we wish to characterise them.
> 
> Therefore, whether or not the women in our lives all adore women's fiction, it is demonstrably untrue to say that as a result of this our female character will also like women's fiction. She could be in that one per cent of women who would rather shove sharp objects into their eyes than read in that genre.
> 
> It all depends on what sort of a person we envision our female character to be.



Absolutely!!!! 

I have on numerous occasion throughout all of my responses stated that this is not about generalizing all women or enforcing stereotypes. This is why I have in all of my posts (as far as I know) consistently used words and terms like 'broad similarities', 'average', etc. 

I also agree completely that it is right to ask the question and to question everything about a character. In other words, not to make lazy assumptions or resort to stereotyping. 

One may very well disagree on whether my interpretation of what is average is correct, whether that is an accurate term from a semantic perspective, or not or even whether there is an 'average' - that is fine. My responses would likely be 

(1) Average (as in typical, as in normal, as in the most common, pick your favorite or least unfavorite) women tend to be less physically aggressive, perhaps more emotionally sensitive - basically all the things Sue and others have mentioned. One can speak of average women liking certain books in the same way that one can speak of average men liking certain books. Or sports. Or knitwear. It does not mean for a moment resorting to cliches or 

 (2) The term average is admittedly not being used entirely correctly in this case but this is a writing forum more than a math forum and everybody knows what the term means in contexts like 'average joe' and 

(3) I think a concept of an ordinary woman does exist in literature in the same way the concept of an 'ordinary' pirate might exist. It does not degrade individuality to speak of similarities. That is a false parallel. Just because the ordinary pirate may carry a parrot does not mean he isn't different to another pirate a parrot in numerous other ways. Perhaps one is vegetarian and the other is not. Perhaps one has a hooked hand and the other does not. We can still speak to the fact both have the  parrot, or that parrots are popular with many pirates, or that perhaps to make a pirate seem more like a pirate in a story we should give him a parrot (though that particular example would be rather cliche).

In other words, nobody is saying anything more than that.

I hope this clears this up a little. Thanks.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 7, 2017)

This thread is getting perilously close to violating the site's no debate policy. I would suggest that it's time get back on track with the discussion of techniques to develop a protagonist's feminine voice and away from gender averaging.


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 8, 2017)

> "it's either a variation of a mother or a variation of an object of lust and there's not much in between. It never feels all the way believable."



Is the comparison even based in the same genre? Because I'm betting it isn't. I'm betting she can't in fact tell the difference between a romance lead written by a man and one written by a woman. I don't think such a study has ever been done, and if one has, please aware me. Different genres have different requirements of their characters. It's very likely that for the average woman, their exposure to female characters written by women will mostly come from the romance genre, where their exposure to female characters written by men, will come from action/fantasy/adventure/superhero. So why would it be surprising that the overall impression in some women's mind will be that women write more down to earth, realistic female characters?

The fact is Memoirs of a Geisha was written by a man and Bayonetta was created by a woman, so it can go either way. If it was assessed scientifically and the people reading it didn't know, and it was the same genre and type of story, I don't see any reason to believe men don't write female characters just as convincingly overall.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 8, 2017)

Like most of the craft of writing, if you want to learn how to do a thing, it's always a good idea to read the works of someone who's done it. Here's a great example of a man writing from a female perspective and doing so with skill.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 8, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> Is the comparison even based in the same genre? Because I'm betting it isn't. I'm betting she can't in fact tell the difference between a romance lead written by a man and one written by a woman. I don't think such a study has ever been done, and if one has, please aware me. Different genres have different requirements of their characters. It's very likely that for the average woman, their exposure to female characters written by women will mostly come from the romance genre, where their exposure to female characters written by men, will come from action/fantasy/adventure/superhero. So why would it be surprising that the overall impression in some women's mind will be that women write more down to earth, realistic female characters?
> 
> The fact is Memoirs of a Geisha was written by a man and Bayonetta was created by a woman, so it can go either way. If it was assessed scientifically and the people reading it didn't know, and it was the same genre and type of story, I don't see any reason to believe men don't write female characters just as convincingly overall.


No one is saying a man can't write a woman well (or a woman a man).  The question that I'm picking up is does the writer have to avail themselves of the differences between the sexes or not.

IMO, the writer must understand the social differences between men and women and the standard "just write a good character" will result is a character that does not appear realistic.

For example, it'll be easy and believable to write a scene where a male protagonist is lost in thought as he walks to his car at night in a desolate parking garage.  If you did that with a female character, it wouldn't come off as believable without special conditions for the character.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 8, 2017)

Tettsuo said:


> No one is saying a man can't write a woman well (or a woman a man).  The question that I'm picking up is does the writer have to avail themselves of the differences between the sexes or not.
> 
> *IMO, the writer must understand the social differences between men and women and the standard "just write a good character" will result is a character that does not appear realistic.*
> 
> For example, it'll be easy and believable to write a scene where a male protagonist is lost in thought as he walks to his car at night in a desolate parking garage.  If you did that with a female character, it wouldn't come off as believable without special conditions for the character.



If the character doesn't appear realistic, then it's not a good character. A fully fleshed-out character will be built using all the influences which shape any of us including, but not focusing on, gender.


----------



## moderan (Nov 8, 2017)

Of course you want to include gender markers...the idea is that you want them to be believable.
So "Her well-filled blouse jiggled aggressively in his direction. He preferred an honest breast, one that could look him right in the eye..." would likely not be putting your best foot forward.
Nor would "His ample yarbles joggled happily in his boxers as he shifted weight, preparing to deliver his well-considered briefs...."

It's a question of balance. In addition you have at least five other sexes, according to current wisdom, to deal with, and you should probably utilize them all.
I struggle with the personal pronoun in such cases. My preferred is "one", which does not denote sexuality but can confer a certain emotional distance. The LeGuinian 'hir' is useful, as is 'it' if you want to be completely impersonal. Monsters and aliens are surprisingly sexy.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 8, 2017)

^ Cool. _A Clockwork Orange_ reference.


----------



## moderan (Nov 8, 2017)

Only in the spirit of the sainted Ludwig Van would I consider such a gross approximation of 'horrorshow'.
But then.

It's not just 'men' and 'women', is my point, buried under all of the purple. What sex is Robbie the Robot? How about the Alien? Think about both before you answer. Okay...how about Cthulhu? What sex is God? Which God?


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 8, 2017)

> For example, it'll be easy and believable to write a scene where a male protagonist is lost in thought as he walks to his car at night in a desolate parking garage.



It would be more believable to whom? Men are statistically far more likely to be violently attacked.  He wouldn't be concerned about being raped, but carjacked, mugged, stabbed? Yes. Three concerns she would share. Unless they were both oblivious characters.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 8, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> It would be more believable to whom? Men are statistically far more likely to be violently attacked.  He wouldn't be concerned about being raped, but carjacked, mugged, stabbed? Yes. Three concerns she would share. Unless they were both oblivious characters.


Okay.  You're right.  Write however you think would work best.

/cheers


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 8, 2017)

Annoying kid said:


> It would be more believable to whom? Men are statistically far more likely to be violently attacked.  He wouldn't be concerned about being raped, but carjacked, mugged, stabbed? Yes. Three concerns she would share. Unless they were both oblivious characters.



I like the writers who ignore statistics—those who avoid predictable characterizations, things that can be explained with broad-brush, gender-specific comments such as "a girl here _would_ do this" or "a guy here _should_ do that".

Those (to me) are common roads. Safe roads. _Boring_ roads.

Give me different, and make me, the reader, believe it. Make me think, "Yes, that's _totally_ how this character would act!" Not how _a_ guy, or _a_ girl, or _a_ robot, or _an_ alien would act—but _this_ specific character, and this character only. :encouragement:


----------



## moderan (Nov 8, 2017)

I like the writers who ignore the other writers. They're vastly more likely to have original thoughts.


----------



## LeeC (Nov 8, 2017)

moderan said:


> I like the writers who ignore the other writers. They're vastly more likely to have original thoughts.


Ummm  ... unintentionally misleading  But:
I like writers who ofttimes ignore other writers advice and much of the in fashion dogma of rote minds, relying more on their own reasoned thoughts, experiences and imagination.
I note this because extensive reading is essential to developing writing skills. Gives one a broader perspective to reason with.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 8, 2017)

moderan said:


> Of course you want to include gender markers...the idea is that you want them to be believable.
> So "Her well-filled blouse jiggled aggressively in his direction. He preferred an honest breast, one that could look him right in the eye..." would likely not be putting your best foot forward.
> Nor would "His ample yarbles joggled happily in his boxers as he shifted weight, preparing to deliver his well-considered briefs...."
> 
> ...



One of my works in progress, "To Proudly Serve" (an excerpt is posted on this board for SOTM October - plug) uses four different gender pronouns/identities to satirize non-binary gender in a future post-apocalyptic state. Despite broadly supporting the current wisdom (in the interests of not giving a damn what truly lies beneath the blouse) I enjoy speculating how far the issue might someday go.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 9, 2017)

moderan said:


> I like the writers who ignore the other writers. They're vastly more likely to have original thoughts.



But likely a markedly inferior ability to communicate those original thoughts effectively.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 9, 2017)

Someone was trying to describe British males to me. I want to add some points. First, finding a "stereotype" can be fun. British male isn't not a forced choice, so why have a British male who does not act like a British male (if that was possible to  figure out). And the answers I was given, right or wrong, are ideas for what any male character could be.


----------



## PiP (Nov 9, 2017)

Emma, I am British, (English) and your comment re British males made me search for typical traits.

(yes, the dreaded numbered list)
You could have fun with this
https://thoughtcatalog.com/liv-barista/2014/12/18-things-to-know-before-dating-a-british-guy/

http://metro.co.uk/2008/11/09/top-50-typically-british-traits-120837/


> 1. Talking about the weather 2. Great at queueing 3. Sarcasm 4. Watching soaps 5. Getting drunk 6. A love of bargains 7. A love of curtain twitching 8. Stiff upper lip 9. Love of all television 10. Moaning 11. Obsession with class 12. Gossiping with neighbours over the garden fence 13. Obsession with the traffic 14. Enjoying other people’s misfortune 15. Inability to complain 16. Love of cheap foreign holidays 17. Working long hours 18. A soothing cup of tea to ease worries 19. Eating meat and two veg 20. Looking uncomfortable on the dance floor 21. Feeling uncomfortable when people talk about their emotions 22. Clever sense of humour 23. Obsession with property values 24. Pandering to political correctness 25. Road rage 26. Being unhappy with our weight 27. Wanting a good tan 28. Being proud of where we live 29. Not saying what we mean 30. The ability to laugh at ourselves 31. Washing the car on a Sunday 32. Taking the mickey out of others 33. Asking people about their journey 34. Inability not to comment on how other people bring up their children 35. Jealousy of wealth and success 36. Being overly polite 37. Texting instead of calling 38. An inability to express our emotions 39. Obsession with the Royal Family 40. Fondness for mowing the lawn 41. Love of rambling through the countryside 42. A love of all things deep fried 43. Emulating celebrity lifestyles 44. Leaving things to the last minute 45. Irony 46. Keeping our homes neat and tidy 47. Take decisions and accept the consequences 48. Achieving against all odds 49. Wanting our sportsmen / teams to fail 50. DIY on a Bank Holiday
> 
> Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2008/11/09/top-50-typically-british-traits-120837/?ito=cbshare



If I wrote a story from a man's POV I would include thoughts/dialogue on sex and food.

 Man wakes up in the morning: 'What's for dinner?' 

You are holding a conversation with a man when you realise he is not listening/participating,  so you follow his line of vision as he announces: 'My God, look at that girl's tit's. If she ran she'd knock herself out. 

Or when there's no conversation... watch men's eyes scan the beach from behind dark glasses while pretending to read a book or newspaper.

Then there's football or golf. 

As a woman I lose the will to live.


----------



## moderan (Nov 9, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> But likely a markedly inferior ability to communicate those original thoughts effectively.


Not if they're just ignoring their contemporaries in some kind of vowel movement.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 9, 2017)

PiP said:


> Emma, I am British, (English) and your comment re British males made me search for typical traits.
> 
> (yes, the dreaded numbered list)
> You could have fun with this
> ...



Not sure about British guys exactly, though I lived there for long enough I recognize much of the stereotype (or archetype, perhaps). 

The thing about stereotypes is they are rather like cartoons - recognizable as a rendition of reality but lacking the necessary detail and nuance to make them believable. There is a strange contradiction in such artforms. One the one hand, characters in cartoons can seem very accurate representations of life in many ways especially when set up to parody or satirize it - King Of The Hill, South Park, that British magazine, I think it's called 'The Viz'? - but on the other hand they're so ridiculous its hard to imagine a 'serious' work ever employing characters like that. 

My take on stereotypes of men and women is to largely use them as mannequins. You have some substance there - its just rather unattractive and bland. It is a character that exists in popular consciousness regardless of statistics. So, it is right to infer most stereotypes are valid as a basis for gender/age/culture/etc but they need more. I would never advocate any writer utilizing a completely cliched character - certainly not as a focus, perhaps as an incidental pop-up (as Terry mentioned) - if for no other reason than its lazy writing and boring work. 

My WIP's female protagonist IS a dull, middle-road, whitebread kind of person, but the key part for me is the things that happen to her and the arc of metamorphosis she goes through. I do not wait until mid-way through the story - much less its end - to start to filter in that change, it is a constant from the start, although it requires a certain catalyst to really bring it to the fore. 

What's hard for me, and the reason I started this thread, is not to necessarily argue over whether gender identity is a thing (I know it is, and at this point give not a fig how people want to read that) but rather to discuss the best methods of bringing that identity to life convincingly as a male writer.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 9, 2017)

I





PiP said:


> Emma, I am British, (English) and your comment re British males made me search for typical traits.
> 
> (yes, the dreaded numbered list)
> You could have fun with this
> ...


Oh, do go on.


----------



## PiP (Nov 10, 2017)

Okay, the discussion so far I believe has mainly been populated by men. I am adding my 2 cents worth as a well-traveled older women with a wealth of life-experience.



VonBradstein said:


> The thing about stereotypes is they are rather like cartoons - recognizable as a rendition of reality but lacking the necessary detail and nuance to make them believable.



If you can crawl into a woman's mind (good luck with that) and see HOW *we *view _some_ men you then have a frame of reference.

 I've never studied or analyzed _how_ to write fiction, I just write. I do, however, observe men and their various traits, eavesdrop on their conversation and the older they get, please trust me when I tell you, these are not cartoon characters they are real.  'Talking' about sex and making sexual innuendos; following sport to the point of obsession; thinking about the next meal and, if you are British, the weather are very much part of their make-up. Oh, and their pet dog. Dogs are a man's best friend. Men are also like children. Please understand it is not my intention to belittle men but I am in my autumn years so I have had a lifetime to observe them.

You state:



> My WIP's female protagonist IS a dull, middle-road, whitebread kind of person, but the key part for me is the things that happen to her and the arc of metamorphosis she goes through. I do not wait until mid-way through the story - much less its end - to start to filter in that change, it is a constant from the start, although it requires a certain catalyst to really bring it to the fore.



What age is your female protagonist? In which country is your story set? Is she a Shirley Valentine?

I believe age probably plays an important factor on how women view men.

I was sexually harassed during my working life and again more recently by someone I thought to be a platonic friend. Because I was work-obsessed (as in work not sex) I was probably the dull, middle-road, whitebread kind of person.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 10, 2017)

PiP said:


> Okay, the discussion so far I believe has mainly been populated by men. I am adding my 2 cents worth as a well-traveled older women with a wealth of life-experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She’s in her early forties, set here in Ohio (the home of dull people). She’s dull in the sense she is pretty much a wallflower, a kind of socially awkward recluse completely dependent on her husband to make decisions for her. I️ deliberately went out of my way to design a character with no inherently interesting characteristics so I️ could develop her gradually through what happens in the novel. wouldn’t say she lacks a personality exactly but she sure lacks an identity of her own at the start and is rather timid and unassertive, hence the use of “dull”. 

So no, doubt she’s much like you at all [emoji846]


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 10, 2017)

PiP said:


> Okay, the discussion so far I believe has mainly been populated by men. I am adding my 2 cents worth as a well-traveled older women with a wealth of life-experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I️ say cartoon characters I️ just mean they aren’t necessarily the sum of their visible and audible parts. 

I️ get the validity of observation but we all know people project differently to how they actually are. Not to say they’re necessarily interesting or surprising people but I️ feel strongly the male identity, like the female one, is more complex than that. So you say “they’re like children” and my response is “why?” You might say it’s because they’re men, and in a way you would be correct - it is to do with gender- but I️ think the gender itself is extremely complex. It certainly needs to be more complex in readable fiction.

I️ should very much like to capture an ordinary man who perhaps checks all the boxes on what you observe, but then another who checks only a few. Then another who perhaps checks none. I️ would like for all those men to fall under the umbrella of “normal guy” in terms of voice while being individually complex creatures. That is what I️ mean by comparing cartoons to characters.


----------



## Sam (Nov 10, 2017)

PiP said:


> Okay, the discussion so far I believe has mainly been populated by men. I am adding my 2 cents worth as a well-traveled older women with a wealth of life-experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In what way are men 'like children'? 

This will be interesting.


----------



## Plasticweld (Nov 10, 2017)

Pip, when I was 11 I spent the summer with my then 70 year old grandfather. He was a member of a group who had walked the Apalachin trail.  On one of their reunion hikes I got to accompany him and his friends.  That were laughing and goofing off and fooling around and picking on each other no differently than I did with my buddies.  One of them was always being picked on, one guy was too serious, they picked on him too.  They teased each other, talked about sex and food and how tough they were.  Who couldn't do what, who could do it better. 

I  left that summer after spending it with guys all past retirement age thinking, "Wow I can hardly wait to be an old guy and have this much fun." 



The only old guy who doesn't act like a kid, was the same guy who never got to act like a kid when he was a kid. 

I am getting close to that age myself now, and I am not shy about doing anything, nor embarrassed about things...and its pretty cool!


----------



## bdcharles (Nov 10, 2017)

Sam said:


> In what way are men 'like children'?
> 
> This will be interesting.



Eyes alive with the wonder and beauty of the world, of course! Founts of optimism and possibility, man! Always exploring, always curious. Living life as a man seems, to me, like an object lesson in being excited about stuff. By contrast, my female MC, who is based on someone I knew and loved and represents an expression of me thinking about women and how they might live and be and think and feel - is more gentle and cautious, and initially she goes with the flow in alot of things. She's very likeable, I think. She's not overly physical. But she will get the fury, and that's where the fun really starts, when those primitive passions kick in.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 10, 2017)

I think there's a misunderstanding happening here.  No one is saying (at least not me) that you cannot write a character that ignores stereotypes and standards.  In fact, please do it more often!  Speaking for myself, I'm saying you need to understand the standards, stereotypes and social norms to properly write either of the sexes.  As PiP pointed out, you also need to understand those things in different environments and how they'll effect the world your character resides in.  It all plays a part in fleshing them out as well as the world around them.

In both of my novels, I've receive praise from women about how I depict female characters.  What they don't know is that I spent tons of time asking multiple women about what I've written.

"Does this ring true?"
"Do the words this character is speaking sound like a woman would say it?"
"Do women talk about stuff like this?"
"Would a woman notice these things or not?"
etc.

Seriously, I've asked so many questions I'm sure their 100% sick of me.  I ask because I have no frame of reference for the life of a woman outside of asking them and trying to understand the sociological pressures placed on them.  All I'm suggesting for both sexes of writers is to do the same.  And once you understand, you can properly deviate from those standards and pressures when you write your characters.


----------



## Sam (Nov 10, 2017)

Tettsuo said:


> I think there's a misunderstanding happening here.  No one is saying (at least not me) that you cannot write a character that ignores stereotypes and standards.  In fact, please do it more often!  Speaking for myself, I'm saying you need to understand the standards, stereotypes and social norms to properly write either of the sexes.  As PiP pointed out, you also need to understand those things in different environments and how they'll effect the world your character resides in.  It all plays a part in fleshing them out as well as the world around them.
> 
> In both of my novels, I've receive praise from women about how I depict female characters.  What they don't know is that I spent tons of time asking multiple women about what I've written.
> 
> ...



Why does this have any relevance to your character? 

What if I told you that for every woman that gave you praise for your female characterisation, there would be another who didn't? Again, this falls into the fallacy of thinking there is a right answer to those questions you're asking. There isn't. Because for every woman who says they like something, I can give you another who hates it. 

This is why getting into the head of a gender is pointless; you should be spending your time getting into the head of _your character. _Because even if you ask every question under the sun, and become an expert on how women act, the only thing that matters is character continuity. Knowing how a woman would answer the question "what do you like in a man?" is not even remotely as valuable as knowing what your female character likes in a man.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 10, 2017)

Sam said:


> This is why getting into the head of a gender is pointless; you should be spending your time getting into the head of _your character_.


How can you or any writer get into the head of a character if you don't understand the world the character has been influenced by?


----------



## LeeC (Nov 10, 2017)

Seems to me that Terry D pretty well answered the OP in his #13 response, and much following that is a soap box derby. Something that a good number of threads of this type seem to follow the course of.

So beating a dead horse, I’ m expanding on what I believe the gist of Terry’’s post was. There’s a boatload of dogma relative to writing, good and bad, as it seems many want ‘assembly’ instructions. The created problem is though, that there are no magic pills — no fast track assembly line to writing, and the writers that try to employ such produce stories that aren’t very engaging. Not reading extensively, and not venturing beyond one’s interests in reading, to gradually improve one’s writing, seems common and is symptomatic in many of the questions posed.

More specifically in this case, there are no one-size-fits-all sets of character aspects to model a gender/ethnic/occupational/whatever character after. Too me, it seems bassackwards to formulate characters and then weave them into a storyline. If one has a story to tell, then the story will have various contrasting characters to bring it to life. That is, a story is depicted in good part by the characters involved. Of course, developing characters that bring out the intended story, without diverging into distracting character studies, is an important aspect of engaging writing. 

My approach is to introduce a character to portray certain behavioral aspects that further the story and engage the reader, usually in contrast with other characters. Such defines a character, and any character building is mostly limited to what needs to be known in furthering the story, and that dribbled out as applicable. Such includes aspects of a character like gender, color of eyes, and so on. Though something like color of eyes may be added to help the reader’s mind’s eye, but is limited. I give the reader the benefit of a doubt, in assuming they employ their mind in reading, and have an active, imaginative mind’s eye. 

In the following example, the opening of one chapter, gender is basically only noted when I include a character’s name. Actually in this example, the reader already knows that Calan and Kay are a married couple. 


———————————————Why can't Calan ever put things back where they belong, I'm thinking as I rummage through kitchen drawers looking for the bread knife.  There he is outside, and it looks like he’s up to another damn fool stunt. "What're you going to do with that ladder and chainsaw?" I call out the window. He worries me to death.​​
"I told you I was taking down the dying tamarack. It has to come down in pieces, unless you don't care what it falls on.”​​
Deaf and dumb as usual, I swear, I've got to spell out everything. "You remember what our neighbor Tom said about ladders and chainsaws, they don't mix."​​
"Yeah I remember Kay, you won't let me forget. I don't have the spurs and gear the pros have, and we can't afford to rent a cherry picker, so unless you've something helpful to add, I'll get on with it."​​
Won't listen as usual. Damn! He's hoisted the ladder almost twenty feet up the tree, and now he's going up with the chain saw. At least he's got his hard hat and chaps on. Are the dogs in? Now the phone, what's next?​——————————————————


----------



## ppsage (Nov 10, 2017)

Anyone who believes that humans can be generically categorized by gender has yet another obstacle to overcome before becoming a decent writer.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 10, 2017)

Sam said:


> This is why getting into the head of a gender is pointless; you should be spending your time getting into the head of _your character. _Because even if you ask every question under the sun, and become an expert on how women act, the only thing that matters is character continuity. Knowing how a woman would answer the question "what do you like in a man?" is not even remotely as valuable as knowing what your female character likes in a man.



This is one of those points that sounds great but has no practical application whatsoever as it pertains to the thread. It is what I️ have seen described as pure “like” fodder.

Not saying it isn’t true, of course. It’s true in the same sense that saying “money isn’t the most important thing in the world”. Yeah, okay, great but then what is? 

See I️ read a lot of this “get into the head of your character” stuff and, speaking personally it’s not a huge issue for myself because I️ can generally do that. I️ consider myself a serviceable yet still developing writer, based on peer review and the little feedback I️ have gleaned from agents. The reason I️ started this thread is because I️ find a minor challenge on portraying women characters realistically (specifically a certain type of women character who lacks a specific feature or skill I️ can use as a proxy) and know the problem lies in the fact she is a woman. I️ know that because I️ do not have such a problem writing about male equivalents. That is the issue.

Here’s the thing, Sam, it’s fine to preach about getting into the head of a character and creating continuity (though pretty obvious in my opinion) but I️ see no actual advice or direction from you on how to do exactly that as it pertains to a female character. I️ see a lot of talk about “knowing them”, understanding their motivations etc, and I️ agree. But the question is not about simply knowing motivations it is also about why those motivations might be and, more specifically, the process of bringing them to life as a male writer. Do you have anything to say about that?

It may well be that you do not have any such advice, and that is fine. It may well be that there is no advice available for that, that it is an impossible task to know a persons experience without ever being part of their sphere, also fine. It may be a pointless question for a discussion in your view, but for those of us who struggle with writing “the other” advice beyond broad talking points re the philosophy of writing only serves to distract. 

Personally I️ like Pips input, and Emma Sohans, and the few females to contribute (who, interestingly, are all pretty frank about gender differences and seem to agree it is a legitimate issue) not because I️ necessarily agree with them but because they are at least engaging with the subject directly and providing stuff to think about.


----------



## Sam (Nov 10, 2017)

Tettsuo said:


> How can you or any writer get into the head of a character if you don't understand the world the character has been influenced by?



What?


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 10, 2017)

ppsage said:


> Anyone who believes that humans can be generically categorized by gender has yet another obstacle to overcome before becoming a decent writer.



Curious: Who has said anything like that? Norms and trends do not indicate absolutes, do not equate to categorization...


----------



## Sam (Nov 10, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> This is one of those points that sounds great but has no practical application whatsoever as it pertains to the thread. It is what I️ have seen described as pure “like” fodder.
> 
> Not saying it isn’t true, of course. It’s true in the same sense that saying “money isn’t the most important thing in the world”. Yeah, okay, great but then what is?
> 
> ...



You seem to be treating women as if they're some kind of unicorns. 

As with any human being, women have dreams, goals, desires, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, traits, vices, habits, addictions, etcetera. To write any character requires intimate knowledge of who and what that character is, and by understanding exactly what the character's stance is on those aforementioned things, you create a personality. That personality can be as contrived or as unique as you want it to be, but if you're creating a character who struggles with confidence, then asking women how they would handle lack of confidence would be a useful question. Asking them whether or not they lack confidence in general is a pointless question. 

If you ask a woman how she acts around the office, she might say that she likes harmless flirting as a way to soften the mood. Is your character, the one who lacks confidence, going to casually flirt with people? Probably not. So what relevance does that question have to your character? None. If you instead asked, "my character is painfully shy: how would you react around the office if you felt that way?", now you're asking questions that will help flesh out your character. 

I once had a female lawyer as a character. She was a strong, independent, and extremely confident woman. When she received unwanted advances from her boss, I asked a number of women how they'd respond. Some said they'd take it to their husbands, others said they'd just try to forget about it, but no one said they'd wrap him up in a sexual harassment lawsuit and destroy him -- which is exactly what my character did. Had I gone with the majority advice from women, my character would have done something completely against the norm for her personality. 

Which is exactly my point.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 10, 2017)

Sam said:


> You seem to be treating women as if they're some kind of unicorns.
> 
> As with any human being, women have dreams, goals, desires, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, traits, vices, habits, addictions, etcetera. To write any character requires intimate knowledge of who and what that character is, and by understanding exactly what the character's stance is on those aforementioned things, you create a personality. That personality can be as contrived or as unique as you want it to be, but if you're creating a character who struggles with confidence, then asking women how they would handle lack of confidence would be a useful question. Asking them whether or not they lack confidence in general is a pointless question.
> 
> ...



Here is a little exercise I️ would respectfully ask you and anybody else who feels strongly that gender is secondary or roughly incidental to ones “character”...

Pull up your most recent WIP or actually anything so long as the book features both men and women.

Replace all male names with female ones, all mentions of “he” with “she” and amend any reference to a physical male/female trait (beards, etc) with a female one as well as stuff that would need to be changed for continuity purposes, such as which bathroom they go to, whether they are a father or mother, etc. do likewise for female. In other words, edit the novel for complete genital reversal.

Leave intact everything to do with motivations, character, etc. Everything that can rationally be argued as not being the sole domain of a certain gender by sole virtue of biology. 

Read it again. 

Look at the way the characters are talking, reacting, interacting with their environment. Same dialogue. Same actions. Same story. Now perhaps it works fine. If so, great, but I️ guarantee that in many cases there will be an element of “this reads kind of weird”. Is our perception of a female FBI agent the same as a male one? Do they conduct business the same way? Is there not a different dynamic between two female cops as two male, as a male and a female? Of course there is. They speak differently. They act differently. The whole world is, rightly or wrongly, dictated by gender and every character is dictated by the world. It is weird to have a gang of women sitting around drinking beer outside a construction site regardless of how well designed the characters are It is weird to have one woman call another a “p*ssy” or a “fagg*t” regardless of how good the dialogue may be. It is weird to have two men talk about another man’s new baby or a couple splitting up regardless of how the relationships are constructed. It is uncommon for a man walking home in the dark to be afraid of being sexually assaulted. It is even more uncommon for a man walking home in the dark to NOT be.

It’s not sexist to say this, nor lazy writing to attempt to reflect this reality, nor is it irrelevant to character. Women are not unicorns, but neither are they horses. Women are women and men are men and while I️ find infinite variations within both there are also a great many commonalities. I️ am interested in capturing the commonalities because they are rather more difficult to navigate as a man who has never been a woman - It is easier to paint something complete unrecognizable as it is to mimic a photograph.

The above mentioned are largely superficial differences, yes, and I’m not really interested in them, but they are also ultimately environmental ones and experiential variations that will make a difference to the voice regardless of the characters personality. The impact on voice as dictated by environment and experience is what I️ am interested in.


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 10, 2017)

I don't get why you struggle with this, Von Bradstein. Presumably you know your wife well, why don't you model characters off her traits? Characters tend to be simpler than real human beings, so one real person could provide resources for several characters. You could use her as a base and modify as required. This kind of question I would expect from long term single men.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 10, 2017)

LeeC said:


> Why can't Calan ever put things back where they belong, I'm thinking as I rummage through kitchen drawers looking for the bread knife.  There he is outside, and it looks like he’s up to another damn fool stunt. "What're you going to do with that ladder and chainsaw?" I call out the window. He worries me to death.
> 
> ​"I told you I was taking down the dying tamarack. It has to come down in pieces, unless you don't care what it falls on.”​
> Deaf and dumb as usual, I swear, I've got to spell out everything. "You remember what our neighbor Tom said about ladders and chainsaws, they don't mix."​​"Yeah I remember Kay, you won't let me forget. I don't have the spurs and gear the pros have, and we can't afford to rent a cherry picker, so unless you've something helpful to add, I'll get on with it."​
> Won't listen as usual. Damn! He's hoisted the ladder almost twenty feet up the tree, and now he's going up with the chain saw. At least he's got his hard hat and chaps on. Are the dogs in? Now the phone, what's next?​



Why isn't she insisting on holding the ladder?

We don't need names to guess who's male and female in this story. American? I have a lot of trouble imagine these gender roles being played out in Arabic. What you wrote is sexist. Or a perfect fit to gender roles (depending on perspective).

And I think the male is perfect. But if she cares about him -- even if only so he keeps bringing home a paycheck -- why isn't she insisting that someone hold the ladder?

I don't know what's in your head, or how you got there, or what comes next in your story. Or even exactly what VonBradstein has us talking about.  But . . . have you, in a tiny way, possibly, presented the wife from the perspective of a male? Something to think about?


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 10, 2017)

Haha, sheesh. Biology is sexist. I've written protagonists that were birds, babies, men, women, hermaphrodites, legless dudes with breast implants, and the Dutch. Not that there's anything wrong with being Dutch, of course.

First thing that springs to mind regarding this topic is how fertile this ground is for over-thinking, as evidenced by some of the back-and-forth here. Considering how adeptly illustrated many female protagonists have been, from Anna Karenina to Aomame (1Q84) to Mariam from A Thousand Splendid Suns, we know this particular archetype is alive and well through the eyes of both male and female authors.

The poor examples mentioned in the OP, which struggle to be authentic, speak largely to the disconnect between character and imaginer-in-chief and probably the majority of these occupy the slash pile. When done right, believable, it all just melts in and we don't consider the gender of the author. The majority of traditionally published novels with female protagonists, written by men, do the fundamental thing we want in any character: trip, stumble, and choke, then triumph.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 10, 2017)

Pluralized said:


> When done right, believable, it all just melts in and we don't consider the gender of the author. The majority of traditionally published novels with female protagonists, written by men, do the fundamental thing we want in any character: trip, stumble, and choke, then triumph.



I agree with this mostly, however the obvious issue is in books where gender and specifically relationships are at the fore. 

A really easy example of gender-bias and gender-misrepresentation is in sex scenes. I don't read much erotica, but even just browsing the stuff on this site (which is relatively well written) one can ALWAYS tell what is written by men and what is written by women and it has nothing to do with the POV of the story. And yeah, it does impact the experience to have a sex scene told ostensibly from a women's perspective which sounds like a heavy breathed man and focuses on things  (not mentioning details because...just no) I severely doubt most women would focus on.

So that's, in a nutshell, why it matters.


----------



## LeeC (Nov 10, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Why isn't she insisting on holding the ladder?



The answer would come with knowing more about such activity, and indeed the following consequences in the chapter make such clear. She trusts him to be careful of his footing, that is to place the ladder so it's secure. He's used a ladder often enough in keeping up the old farm house they live in. The problem pertains to how well one can maneuver if something goes amiss in the cutting. He's topping a tree, and the mistake that's made is judging which way the tree top will fall. He misjudges, and the only recourse open to him is falling off (being knocked off) the ladder with a sputtering chainsaw. Ask PW about the stupid things novices do. 

Knowing more of the story (which wasn't my point here), one might realize that having different strengths they compliment each other well. There's certainly no sexist intent (and it makes me wonder about your comment), as I could have turned the story around using something not too bright she did and not listening to Calan, which no doubt someone else would see as sexist. In real life, two mature 'people', neither of which is a 'follower', don't necessarily listen to each other when they believe they've thought something out. It's idealist to think they do.

What leads from your point to me, is why I don't read anything that's unnecessarily erotic to attract readers with base proclivities, and seldom even a polite romance novel. Men and women being commonly so stereotyped in such.

We get so hung up on our stomachs, or focused below the belt, or on material gain to facilitate both, that we ignore how we're trashing the world our children will have to get by in. What's that say about our ballyhooed human intelligence?

PS: Oh yes Emma, I've considered whether I was presenting "the wife from the perspective of a male." My wife, 40 some year old daughter, and the women in my email circle that replied, all said they can't see male bias in the presentation. Having exposed you to only a snippet though, it's possible one might jump to conclusions. We're all subjective beings  
I'm careful because the underlying intent of the book is trying expose more to ecological/environmental issues. The really serious issues we commonly ignore, or leave to someone else to handle. Truly considering such might cause one to wonder why we occupy our 'minds' with such issues as go on and on in threads like this.


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 10, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> I'm officially ending my involvement in this pending any further contributions that are not attempts to start arguments. Cheers.



Dude, don't do that - it's your thread. Let's run this thing to a logical conclusion: writing wooden characters bad. Not knowing how humans think and act bad. Over-sexualizing bad. Talking about heaving breasts or other ridiculous descriptors bad. Not taking the time to understand the emotional motivators that drive characters and resorting to gimmicks bad.

We should hear a summary of what you've gained from this thread, as it's been quite interesting and taken several pages and lots of viewpoints from people. Sincerely curious how you'll approach writing your next female protagonist or incidental character after this discussion.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 10, 2017)

Pluralized said:


> Dude, don't do that - it's your thread. Let's run this thing to a logical conclusion: writing wooden characters bad. Not knowing how humans think and act bad. Over-sexualizing bad. Talking about heaving breasts or other ridiculous descriptors bad. Not taking the time to understand the emotional motivators that drive characters and resorting to gimmicks bad.
> 
> We should hear a summary of what you've gained from this thread, as it's been quite interesting and taken several pages and lots of viewpoints from people. Sincerely curious how you'll approach writing your next female protagonist or incidental character after this discussion.



Well, I did say pending further contributions... 

I think what I've mainly gleaned from this is that most writers are not terribly comfortable with the premise of the discussion, or at the very least have established a viewpoint that they are not terribly comfortable with having challenged. That may sound negative. Its not supposed to be. If anything it supports what I kind of already suspected which is that gender portrayal is still a difficult thing one hundred years post-suffrage. 

While most of us are, or at least purport to be, egalitarian in outlook we have, as a broad voice, not seemingly decided whether women and men should be treated equally (in terms of writing approach) or differently, or even if there is actually an issue in regard to how women are portrayed in writing. It seems people would prefer to debate the relevancy of the question than how it might be addressed - which is a theme I find quite common in this forum. Which is unfortunate, really, still I support the right and some individuals have been eloquent and insightful enough that I don't mind too much. Ultimately I may have started the discussion but it is not really 'my thread'. I ask these things as much for others who may have encountered similar difficulties than myself. I tend not to blindly trust the teachings of strangers on the internet anyway. It is simply there for what it is.

Beyond the larger issue of reading some of these passionate, sometimes emotional, occasionally completely illogical, reactions I have gathered one or two decent ideas regarding future approach. I think the main takeaway would be to read books by men about women and books by women about women. I think this will assist in contrasting and hopefully a means for myself to discern what I feel the differences and commonalities are. Hopefully in doing so I can discover what items are being lost. I think more than anything it is important to read books by women.

It is unfortunate that the forum could not help much with the initial questions, but then again I generally only start discussions that I feel are challenging and more often than not have an inkling that there probably wont be much (useful) response. Often times it seems that in working towards an answer one finds answers to other things - the insight is helpful and appreciated.


----------



## moderan (Nov 10, 2017)

Pluralized said:


> Haha, sheesh. Biology is sexist. I've written protagonists that were birds, babies, men, women, hermaphrodites, legless dudes with breast implants, and the Dutch. Not that there's anything wrong with being Dutch, of course.
> 
> First thing that springs to mind regarding this topic is how fertile this ground is for over-thinking, as evidenced by some of the back-and-forth here. Considering how adeptly illustrated many female protagonists have been, from Anna Karenina to Aomame (1Q84) to Mariam from A Thousand Splendid Suns, we know this particular archetype is alive and well through the eyes of both male and female authors.
> 
> The poor examples mentioned in the OP, which struggle to be authentic, speak largely to the disconnect between character and imaginer-in-chief and probably the majority of these occupy the slash pile. When done right, believable, it all just melts in and we don't consider the gender of the author. The majority of traditionally published novels with female protagonists, written by men, do the fundamental thing we want in any character: trip, stumble, and choke, then triumph.


A person after my own cold old heart. Gender and species are immaterial, to a point. They're definitely immaterial to the originator, who simply needs to keep in mind the conceptual continuity of character development and try to steer clear of fanciful grounds.

Has anyone here actually collaborated with anyone from a nominal different gender? That might be instructive for you -- I have found it to be so. Back when I wrote the smut, my collaborator was female. I have also written with two trans people and an avowed asexual, plus additional talented ladies. It totally changes the nature of perception. After a while, the stylistic differences are minimized. Then you just have content.

Also, Godzilla and Cthulhu are both female. Think about it. Ever seen Son of Godzilla? The baby reacts mama-normative. Who's the daddy? Is it true that the evening foghorn calls to him?
Big C has the advantage of being able to reproduce by both mitosis and meiosis. Not female-norm but toward that end of the spectrum as cephalopods and amphibians might have it.
It's not so hard. Make it natural. Do the work, read books by women, or whichever spectral section, understand their preoccupations, grok their perspective as best you can, and then you're qualified to wing it. If the audience notices what you're doing, you need to rethink.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 11, 2017)

moderan said:


> A person after my own cold old heart. Gender and species are immaterial, to a point. They're definitely immaterial to the originator, who simply needs to keep in mind the conceptual continuity of character development and try to steer clear of fanciful grounds.
> 
> Has anyone here actually collaborated with anyone from a nominal different gender? That might be instructive for you -- I have found it to be so. Back when I wrote the smut, my collaborator was female. I have also written with two trans people and an avowed asexual, plus additional talented ladies. It totally changes the nature of perception. After a while, the stylistic differences are minimized. Then you just have content.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure godzilla or cthulu fit the definition of normal women, however female they may be.

But...I think the collaboration idea is a good one. I personally am against collaborating on any serious work - been there, done that, got the t-shirt and it did not fit well - but I would not be opposed to it purely as part of an exercise on my part. I mean, worth a shot, right? And who knows.

Actually my WIP is coming along quite nicely 20,000 words plus change and a little bit under two weeks in to the first draft. I don't tend to average much more than 1500 words a day with family and work commitments, so its coming out fairly seamlessly. At this point I'm going to kind of see where it goes. Hopefully I can avoid inadvertently attaching a penis where it is not warranted. Now there's a sentence I never thought I would write.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 11, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> . If anything it supports what I kind of already suspected which is that gender portrayal is still a difficult thing one hundred years post-suffrage.
> 
> While most of us are, or at least purport to be, egalitarian in outlook we have, as a broad voice, not seemingly decided whether women and men should be treated equally (in terms of writing approach) or differently, or even if there is actually an issue in regard to how women are portrayed in writing....



Yeah. It seems like there are so many forces pulling on a writer. Does my character like math? Trivially, I can fight against male/female stereotypes, and that might be socially desirable. Or I can do a lot of work to learn male/female stereotypes, thinking that they might be real differences, then try to write more accurate characters that make my story come to life.

Meanwhile, our characters play a role in our book. No one is criticizing Fleming for having an inaccurate portrayal of a male (or, for the matter, females). In the scene Winston pointed out, the hyper-femininity is overdone, in my opinion, but her femininity makes the scene work, in my opinion. We all know it's generally better to have a female get kidnapped by the evil guy.

Meanwhile, I want to answer the question, what is the "heroic" role model for females. And use fiction to explore the differences between males and females. So I am throwing myself into the differences and my writing reeks of differences.



> Joshua is still embarrassed. Apparently he isn't good at dealing with females. I do feel sorry for him. I'm about to point out that I probably can't do this [help Joshua get a date], when I remember that Alex won't let me get away with that excuse. I look to him for eye contact. Still no eye contact. I'm a single, isolated female being pushed around by eight big guys.
> 
> 
> Can't they help Joshua? I look around this estrogen-deficient table. Probably not.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 11, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> I think the main takeaway would be to read books by men about women and books by women about women. I think this will assist in contrasting and hopefully a means for myself to discern what I feel the differences and commonalities are.



I think it'd be an even more insightful exercise if you could, somehow, prevent yourself from knowing the names and genders of the authors while reading them—this way you'd be judging things based on the writing and characterization alone.

After all, if a character is written really well, does the author's gender even matter? :encouragement:


----------



## Bayview (Nov 11, 2017)

Kyle R said:


> I think it'd be an even more insightful exercise if you could, somehow, prevent yourself from knowing the names and genders of the authors while reading them—this way you'd be judging things based on the writing and characterization alone.
> 
> After all, if a character is written really well, does the author's gender even matter? :encouragement:



This has been achieved, to some degree, via pen names.

There was one early writer in the m/m romance genre who got a lot of praise from readers because he was one of the few men writing m/m and you could really feel the authenticity in his writing and his men just felt more like real men and women writers should take lessons from him on how to be authentic... and then a couple years ago "he" revealed that he was a woman.

I think it made a lot of people question the authenticity of their "authenticity".


----------



## Vilenica (Nov 11, 2017)

Bayview said:


> This has been achieved, to some degree, via pen names.
> 
> There was one early writer in the m/m romance genre who got a lot of praise from readers because he was one of the few men writing m/m and you could really feel the authenticity in his writing and his men just felt more like real men and women writers should take lessons from him on how to be authentic... and then a couple years ago "he" revealed that he was a woman.
> 
> I think it made a lot of people question the authenticity of their "authenticity".



Did the author claim his work are authentic or are readers those who fanboy him and claim he's authentic when he weren't actually?


----------



## moderan (Nov 11, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> I'm not sure godzilla or cthulu fit the definition of normal women, however female they may be.
> 
> But...I think the collaboration idea is a good one. I personally am against collaborating on any serious work - been there, done that, got the t-shirt and it did not fit well - but I would not be opposed to it purely as part of an exercise on my part. I mean, worth a shot, right? And who knows.
> 
> Actually my WIP is coming along quite nicely 20,000 words plus change and a little bit under two weeks in to the first draft. I don't tend to average much more than 1500 words a day with family and work commitments, so its coming out fairly seamlessly. At this point I'm going to kind of see where it goes. Hopefully I can avoid inadvertently attaching a penis where it is not warranted. Now there's a sentence I never thought I would write.



That's where the skill part and suspension of disbelief come in. You can make them behave like they are. Just change their compulsion, make yourself believe.
Son of Godzilla already did that. previously Gojiro was protecting his realm as if he were Namor or Arthur Dent -- we were fouling his water with our stuff. It was a major leap cognitively to then ascribe those actions to mother-protective. It's so paradigm-shifting that most people don't even notice it. 
And Cthulhu was just yelling at those people. S/He swam up to complain about the noise from their motorboat, and they drove it through him/her as s/he dematerialized. S/He can control hir density. "Get off my wave, you kids!"

Why wouldn't you collaborate on serious work? Many people have been very successful doing so. Not as many as have been UNsuccessful, granted, but enough of a sampling to show that it's doable for a good percentage of the scrivening population. Asking for a friend.
1500 words/day is a serious commitment.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 11, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Well, I did say pending further contributions...
> 
> I think what I've mainly gleaned from this is that most writers are not terribly comfortable with the premise of the discussion, or at the very least have established a viewpoint that they are not terribly comfortable with having challenged. That may sound negative. Its not supposed to be. If anything it supports what I kind of already suspected which is that gender portrayal is still a difficult thing one hundred years post-suffrage.
> 
> ...



Really? That's what you get from this? In general the only person who seems to have a problem with writing from an opposite sex perspective in this thread is you. Just because some posters have been dismissive of the issue actually _being_ an issue doesn't mean they are uncomfortable with it at all. I know I'm not. To me, developing a character of any sort is a straight forward process. Not always easy, but there's not much about writing well that is easy, is there? 

As our dear Emma can tell you, one of the aspects of writing discussions that tends to get under my skin is when someone tries to add layers of complexity to topics that aren't really very complicated at all. I see too many situations where inexperienced writers get tied up in knots worrying about "shit that ain't shit" as one of my characters might say. Creating good characters, good stories, good settings, good dialogue isn't complicated, and there aren't any 'techniques', IMO, that can be learned to make you better at doing so. Way back in the dim and distant past, before this thread became a big ball of fluff, you asked how to create, as a man, a good female character. A fairly straight forward question (if a little vague) which received some fairly straight forward answers -- many of which boiled down to, "approach her femaleness just as you would approach her race, if it were different from your own, or her education level, or her background, or any one of a dozen differences which make our characters who they are." No one said to treat a woman in your story like a man, just to treat each character as unique. Just because that answer didn't satisfy you doesn't mean it's not an answer.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 11, 2017)

Vilenica said:


> Did the author claim his work are authentic or are readers those who fanboy him and claim he's authentic when he weren't actually?



A bit of both, but mostly fans/bloggers saying it and the author not contradicting them.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 11, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> No one is criticizing Fleming for having an inaccurate portrayal of a male (or, for the matter, females).



I️ think it was you who raised this Fleming point before. We’re talking the author of the Bond books, right?

I️ wonder, you know...Ian Fleming died in the sixties before the counter culture revolution, so it’s fair to say he is not an example of a modern author. I️ suspect most judgment takes into account his era which was one of chauvinism. I️ don’t know if he would escape criticism if writing that stuff now. Heck, I️ don’t even know if he would be writing it is he was a modern man.

I️ suspect, like Shakespeare writing about greedy Jews, we tend to overlook it as a product of the time. There is an argument as to whether old books should be judged by modern values. I️ tend to say they should not be, for the simple reason that I️ find value in older books and would find it hard to find a great number that did not have some fairly questionable world views. 

Ultimately I️ cannot hold Fleming responsible for the attitudes of Bond toward women without considering that someday my work could be just as readily criticized by a future vegan world for the fact my novels contain scenes of people eating meat. Ultimately it’s a question of what is socially acceptable.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 12, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Really? That's what you get from this? In general the only person who seems to have a problem with writing from an opposite sex perspective in this thread is you. Just because some posters have been dismissive of the issue actually being an issue doesn't mean they are uncomfortable with it at all. I know I'm not. To me, developing a character of any sort is a straight forward process. Not always easy, but there's not much about writing well that is easy, is there?
> 
> 
> As our dear Emma can tell you, one of the aspects of writing discussions that tends to get under my skin is when someone tries to add layers of complexity to topics that aren't really very complicated at all. I see too many situations where inexperienced writers get tied up in knots worrying about "shit that ain't shit" as one of my characters might say. Creating good characters, good stories, good settings, good dialogue isn't complicated, and there aren't any 'techniques', IMO, that can be learned to make you better at doing so. Way back in the dim and distant past, before this thread became a big ball of fluff, you asked how to create, as a man, a good female character. A fairly straight forward question (if a little vague) which received some fairly straight forward answers -- many of which boiled down to, "approach her femaleness just as you would approach her race, if it were different from your own, or her education level, or her background, or any one of a dozen differences which make our characters who they are." No one said to treat a woman in your story like a man, just to treat each character as unique. Just because that answer didn't satisfy you doesn't mean it's not an answer.




I️ do not start threads about subjects to have the very premise of the subject debated. That’s not to say I️ necessarily object to people doing it, of course, nor is it my place to. I am not looking for an echo chamber. Sometimes it is undoubtedly informative. That said, there’s a certain tiredness I️ feel when I️ start a discussion and am met with the response that “it doesn’t matter if your characters/story is good.” That is true. It also is extremely obvious. At least to me, it is.


I️ was asked what I️ learned. I did not offer it voluntarily - i don't generally think of sharing such things. I️ am responding to that question honestly. I have no idea why that is even being questioned. One does not question the validity of what somebody _says _they learned. My work can be testament to whether I️ have gleaned the best of the available advice. I️ think I️ have. 


I️ don’t necessarily disagree with, nor ever seek to dismiss, any thoughtful responses opposed to my view raised in this or any other thread. All are absolutely valid because they come from the community. I️ said that much. However I️ regret to say (no, actually I️ don’t...) that “approach her femaleness just as you would approach anything else” means absolutely nothing as far as useful direction. It is a philosophy, nothing more. Sure, it might be a revelation to some people, but not me. To me it is a sidestep, a kind of intellectual grandstanding, and I am allergic. More to the point, I️ have heard it expressed more or less the same way many times across several discussions here (as well as countless articles) which only contributes to the lessening of 'wow, yeah!'


At no point did I️ ask “hey, do you guys think gender is an issue in fiction because I️ dunno?” or any variation. I️ did not ask that question because I️ have made up my mind on that and resolved the premise sufficient to form the questions I did ask, which were mainly concerning technique. Yet somehow that very thing became the focal point - just as it did in the last long, winding thread (all of them) concerning character! Suddenly everybody wants to enlighten me on what DOES matter! Again, its all jolly interesting stuff but its not new information to me at this point, hence was absent from the summary.


I’m not sure if you have read my work posted on the forum. There are a three pieces nominated for SOTM. While I️ do lack the credentials and have no published work (I️ am against self publishing, for now) I️ have been doing this for a decent amount of time, ten years or so, and long enough to have a degree of confidence (though not nearly enough, I fear), a degree of awareness as to what I am not good at, and to know the basics of how to construct a semi decent character and story...and I️ actually think I’m kind of okay at that. Not anywhere near great. Probably light years from yourself and others. Not the fully hatched egg, so to speak. But...I think I am okay. Definitely not embryonic in terms of know-how, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Not “inexperienced” as far as actually putting down words on a page. Certainly I️ don’t struggle with character design in general. 

That said, I️ am trying to reach a higher level in terms of authenticity of voice. That is important to me, and thus have been thinking a great deal in terms of how to hone in on traits particular to characters who are not proxies of myself or people I️ know. I am thinking about what aspects there are specifically to hone in on, and how best to overcome the handicap of my gender. And, again, I have made up my mind it is a handicap. It is nobody’s place here (and especially no male writers place) to tell me for fact that it isn’t. You may disagree, of course, and I️ give not a fig if you do. It’s real to me because it’s real to my wife and other women I️ have encountered. 


To that goal, I️ have learned stuff. I like Moderans idea of collaboration with a woman writer. I️ like Pips and Emma’s personal and quite frank input. I️ liked your advice about reading more fiction about women. Various other bits and pieces. But if you expect me to say that it was hugely beneficial to me to be told (by almost unanimously male writers) that I should simply “treat each character as unique” I️ am going to have to, as respectfully as I️ can, roll my eyes and sigh because (1) No shit Sherlock (2) Almost nobody is entirely, across the board, unique - that’s why we have solid groups of cultures/religions/political parties/sexual fetishes and (3) Just because a character conforms to a certain set of predefined characteristics and norms has no bearing, zero, on their individuality, which I typically find is drawn more from the situation than raw personality aspects anyway. I️ am trying to make my characters unique, trust me. Been working on it for years. I️ am also trying to make them recognizable and compatible with the perceptions of women readers. Uniqueness is a entirely separate issue to that.

I am going to largely ignore the thing about "In general the only person who seems to have a problem with writing from an opposite sex perspective in this thread is you" because - fairly or not - I read it as a kind of underhanded dig at (at best) my writing ability or (at worst) perhaps something more personal in nature. In any case, its not all that relevant except to say I was not the only one who has voiced the opinion that writing from a female perspective in a female voice is markedly different for a man and potentially more challenging, and that even if I was a lone voice it would have zero bearing on the validity of what I am saying. Or trying to. This is a thread with perhaps twenty folks posting responses. It is not a jury of the literary kingdom nor the Iowa Caucus. The fact x number believe one way means little compared to the views themselves.


On which note I️ have to say, I’m a little struck that anybody on a writing forum could have an issue with drawn out 'complex' discussions on any writing subject. I’m not sure what things “getting under your skin” has to do with anything on gods green earth, nor why you feel the need to share that, but it’s strange to me now you have. It rather makes me wonder what it is that is worthy of “complex discussion” in your view? Perhaps not much is. Millenia of writers have managed without, after all. Take away all the threads which are deep explorations of simple matters and one is left with very little. Perhaps that’s a good thing? Perhaps the entire “Writing Discussion” forum ought be condensed into one single thread titled "how to write good" in which everybody can just take turns rehashing different varieties - each more eloquently stated than the last - of “get to know your characters”, “tell a story that matters to you” or whatever else is sufficiently self-evident and incontrovertible that it cannot be ever contradicted by a sound minded writer (or human)? Perhaps we should all stay clear of anything more nuanced or controversial than those, rock solid, mantras and tenets for fear we might “get under people’s skin” with how unabashedly empirical and overly complex our viewpoint is? Perhaps no assumptions, inferences, anecdotal lessons should ever be asserted as truths because “well, it’s not true for everyone is it?" And no, it cannot be proven.

Sigh.

 I have said before, if one does not feel these things are complicated then that is fine, but then why (repeatedly) participate in a thread about them? Why get (repeatedly) involved in the discussion? What is the outcome that is hoped for? Just to repeatedly reaffirm various things are not complicated and dismiss ensuing dialogue/disagreement as “a big ball of fluff”? Just to have all views flattened into a homogenous chant of “character is important!” “Write things that are unique!” “Understand your characters motives!” that can then be held up as the holy grail for _writers getting better at writing?_


My view is there's nothing wrong with taking an interest in the small or big pictures, having a different view towards a subject and analyzing it vigorously and passionately and even without solid conclusion. So long as it does not put hardship on the creative process. This particular response, long as it is,  did not take me longer than twenty minutes to hammer out and I enjoy respectful discussion. I enjoy hearing opposing viewpoints (so long as they are new ones) and I respect your views, too. I️ simply do not understand the thought process behind what is being repeated endlessly. It also rather puts me (and possibly others as well) off from starting these kinds of threads in future for fear we will be quickly and in rapid succession made to feel like idiots, pariahs, narrow minded sophists or clueless novices by people with 1000+ posts and a variety of medals under their name because the proverbial pill went Unswallowed. Well pardon me but no thanks. I️ have not been given the evidence of your mastery, and have seen it contradicted in reality. 

I do not mean this disrespectfully, I mean it honestly. I am bringing it up only because its a good example of what I feel is combative and not helpful feedback and to explain why. I’m not saying that is true for all of the responses on here - just a few, really - nor that there were unsavory motives behind those that left such an impression. I am simply saying that to criticize the premise of a question endlessly does not contribute to anybody's learning beyond a limited point. And nah, it did not help me at all.


I️ suppose we are not going to agree on this. All I️ will say further is to once again reiterate my thanks to you and everybody else who offered time to contribute...and to smile a little at the fact that an answer written by me to a question about what I️ learned apparently fell short of expectations because it did not include what you and other loud voices argued for. I’m sorry, I️ guess. I'll try better next time.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 12, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> I️ think it was you who raised this Fleming point before. We’re talking the author of the Bond books, right?
> 
> I️ wonder, you know...Ian Fleming died in the sixties before the counter culture revolution, so it’s fair to say he is not an example of a modern author. I️ suspect most judgment takes into account his era which was one of chauvinism. I️ don’t know if he would escape criticism if writing that stuff now. Heck, I️ don’t even know if he would be writing it is he was a modern man.
> 
> ...



I had not thought about how old the Fleming books are. Good point. There are no modern equivalents?

 There is a huge value in the MC being the ideal male character having the ideal male life. Um, men are going to like reading it. (Or, watching the movie.) And, really, the strong brave honest good hero is a great role model for men, right? In the typical romance or Y/A book, the male lead is also idealized.

My WIP has the most one-dimensional characters ever. I had not realized the huge values in that. I end up with characters that are not anywhere close to realistic. Meanwhile, all the interactions come alive, there is usually someone to do whatever the plot needs while staying in character, and the book easily takes on mythic themes.

And characters can be role models. Hazel and Augustus (The Fault in Our Stars) are not typical. But they are a role model for me, maybe in real life but definitely for the issue of how to interact with people who have terminal cancer.

Anyway, that was the point I was thinking with my cryptic mentions of Fleming (James Bond). Our characters have to be plausible, which means following real life, but they don't have to be real.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> I had not thought about how old the Fleming books are. Good point. There are no modern equivalents?
> 
> There is a huge value in the MC being the ideal male character having the ideal male life. Um, men are going to like reading it. (Or, watching the movie.) And, really, the strong brave honest good hero is a great role model for men, right? In the typical romance or Y/A book, the male lead is also idealized.
> 
> ...



It's a little bit of a segue, but something that sure struck me about the couple of Bond books I read at the time was how dark the character of Bond is compared to in the movie adaptions. I actually think they're all right books, though faintly ridiculous ("Bond lit his 80th cigarette of the day" is the opening line of Dr. No), but though that kind of thing will never be my cup of tea I appreciate it. Mainly I appreciate it for its creation of an archetype, the fact the stories are pretty decently executed, and the fact Bond _is _a little more interesting than in the movies. Definitely a product of its time, though.

I personally take the view that worrying too much about nebulous character traits, be it a man or a woman, is kind of a futile pursuit. The story brings out the character aspects that matter - the question then becomes how one merges the character into the story. That's where I tend to have struggles, in relation to the OP, because the question then becomes "Is this a believable action/reaction to what is happening?" I think that's probably the number one struggle for most writers, honestly, because of the gulf between a character in a story and a person doing things in terms of detail.

 For instance writing a simple thing, like a character driving their car to a gas station, is heavily simplified in a story - partly for practical reasons, because otherwise word counts and boredom would be through the roof, and partly because the action is known through the filter of observation and imagination. There are things I notice myself doing in driving a car, on a simple trip but there are plenty more things I am sure I do not. There are plenty _more _things that my wife probably does in driving her car to the gas station that I have not seen (these would likely be different if I was there anyway) nor thought of, and possibly even she hasn't either, so I can't even ask the question, and hence the unassailable dichotomy between a fictional portrayal and a real, breathing person. 

Ultimately this makes it _harder_ (whether it seems that way or not) to create an accurate rendition. Even if the character and situation is entirely fictitious (Cthulu, for instance) the reader will impose likenesses in order to make that judgement, so Moderan's point about tropes and humanistic aspects extending to such beings is valid.

A lot of that is obvious, I'm sure, but I think a lot of folks take it for granted just how hard (or impossible) it really is to create believable impact - which has been part of my frustration through this entire discussion. I find to an extent pretty much every character is idealized. Even a lowly bartender character is usually written or intended to be written as the _most believable bartender we can think of _because, of obvious reasons, we want our characters to be believable in their designated roles. We may for some reason decide to try to make the bartender incompetent, but then he becomes _the most believably incompetent bartender ever _and thus the same applies. But in real life, I think, its more complicated. We may come across a bartender who is incompetent in some ways - they take a long time to ring you up - but make a decent martini. But then, oh, they don't make the old fashioned quite right. So what are they? What role do they have in the story? Are they the competent, experienced bartender or the rookie? The answer, of course, is somewhere in between...but then we find the character fatally weakened from a reader's perspective by having no clear identity that is functional to the plot. A state of constant fluctuation. Most real people, I think, are in that. Most people's personalities actually change from day in to day out - perhaps because of hormones, perhaps because they didn't get enough sleep, etc. Most real people might be extremely honest in a number of ways but liars in others and the switch-off can happen over the course of years, months, days or minutes. Most real people don't have a real personality. They may have some things that do not change, or do not change often at least, but unless they are a psychopath or a nun they tend to be extremely weakly defined as far as their interactions and extremely changeable according to circumstance. This kind of character is slippery and hard to write, but is probably the most 'accurate'. Unfortunately most books can't function with that sort of character because in order to clearly 'paint' them they would need to invest a huge amount of word-space.

So we end up with the Bond-type, or we end up with something a little more fleshed out and natural...but never to the point it could be mistaken for a real person IMO. That's just the way it is, I think. As far as a modern day equivalent of the Fleming Macho Asshole, not totally sure since I do not read much of the genre... Possibly Jack Reacher from the  Lee Child this-is-awesome-guys-look-how-much-coffee-this-ape-can-drink 'novels'. Though mentioning them in the same breath as Fleming makes me cringe. Still, its the idealized macho man all the way, huh.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

moderan said:


> That's where the skill part and suspension of disbelief come in. You can make them behave like they are. Just change their compulsion, make yourself believe.
> Son of Godzilla already did that. previously Gojiro was protecting his realm as if he were Namor or Arthur Dent -- we were fouling his water with our stuff. It was a major leap cognitively to then ascribe those actions to mother-protective. It's so paradigm-shifting that most people don't even notice it.
> And Cthulhu was just yelling at those people. S/He swam up to complain about the noise from their motorboat, and they drove it through him/her as s/he dematerialized. S/He can control hir density. "Get off my wave, you kids!"
> 
> ...



Good point. I guess even a violent monster can be human, eh.

I am not opposed to collaborations. I just enjoy writing by myself. Something relaxing about being able to get lost in a sickly fantasy without having somebody pushing to incorporate Laika The Space Dog where I feel she isn't necessarily needed.


----------



## Jason (Nov 13, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Can I simply avoid mentioning it in my book? Sure - and you can bet that I am avoiding it like hell - but in avoiding or paying only lip service to a fairly fundamental (and universal) aspect of femininity I am limited in my perspective in the same way I would be if I tried to write about something that only probably makes sense to experience and that I cannot, fundamentally, ever experience. This is the sort of thing I am talking about when I speak of “walls” and I am interested on how others manage to work around them, that’s all.



Your example of menstruation is a particularly good one for several reasons.  Obviously you (or I) can't experience it so are handicapped on writing convincingly about it. However, there are two perspectives to consider.  First, how do women talk about it?  In my very candid life experience growing up as the only male in the house and the baby so was mostly invisible, I was the "fly on the wall" around women's conversations.  Regarding menstruation, women almost never "talk" about it.  The rather rare real talking comes when a young teen is experiencing problems and that is almost always a one on one conversation that usually leads to a nurse getting involved. If the conversation is brought up in company (think coffee at the kitchen table between friends) it is given some meaningful looks, then suggested that they get professional medical help. That thread goes nowhere for most book situations so can pretty much be ignored.  

What really happens is women, in the company of other women, quip about it.  A short comment is about all it gets.  The comment can be humorous, sympathetic, or just about any of the emotive perspectives you can apply to any standard unavoidable inconvenience of life.  It's a big deal for some women, and a non-deal for others - character driven.  The quips can be so small a man in the situation probably wouldn't notice.

But understand, women talking "woman" are not unique in this.  Racial and ethnic groups do it all the time.  As an American living in Asia there were things we would say to each other that the English speaking Asians wouldn't pick up on.  

The trick is to pay attention to how women talk about a topic, write about it, and run it by a trusted woman for authenticity.  "Would a woman do / say this?"  I frequently do that with my wife on what I've written from a woman's perspective. 

Think about all the walls in every non-normal situation.  An easy one is murder. I, nor just about any writer, won't ever commit murder, yet murderers are often written about. Silence of the Lambs was a particularly horrific portrayal of a murderer.  Was it accurate?  In my opinion, genuine accuracy doesn't matter near as much as it convinced me, the reader / viewer, that it was chillingly real.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> I️ do not start threads about subjects to have the very premise of the subject debated. That’s not to say I️ necessarily object to people doing it, of course, nor is it my place to. I am not looking for an echo chamber. Sometimes it is undoubtedly informative. That said, there’s a certain tiredness I️ feel when I️ start a discussion and am met with the response that “it doesn’t matter if your characters/story is good.” That is true. It also is extremely obvious. At least to me, it is.
> 
> 
> I️ was asked what I️ learned. I did not offer it voluntarily - i don't generally think of sharing such things. I️ am responding to that question honestly. I have no idea why that is even being questioned. One does not question the validity of what somebody _says _they learned. My work can be testament to whether I️ have gleaned the best of the available advice. I️ think I️ have.
> ...



I'm not going to argue with your reply point-by-point as I have no desire to add to the dross of this thread. I will say one or two things, however. 

The first and foremost being that I will reply to any thread I choose in any way I choose. That's the price you pay for posting on an open forum. You may not like, or value what I have to say, but that doesn't matter to me, because I'm not writing for your edification. I mentioned, "inexperienced writers", which you seem to think was a reference to you. It was not. You are obviously a technically proficient writer. When I look at threads like this and see where I believe there exists an opportunity to make writing seem less complicated and intimidating to young writers, I will say so. I might even say so a number of times in hopes that the thought doesn't get buried under all the other verbiage. I was simply being honest when I said threads which, in my opinion, add unnecessary complexity to the act of writing "get under my skin". I don't understand why that would be an issue for you. I've been around writing discussions for a long time and have seen many people who treat writing as some great mystery. Some complicated puzzle-box that requires special knowledge to open. When I see a discussion taking that tack, I'll usually get involved to present a contrasting view-point. That contrast isn't always welcome. I can deal with that.

You accuse me of (repeatedly) getting involved in this discussion to express my views. Out of 108 posts, so far, I've mentioned my views on character development 6 times, and in at least three of those I gave specific ideas of how I work, or how the idea could be approached. I don't think a 6% participation rate is particularly egregious, but you may disagree.

Counter sigh.


----------



## Jason (Nov 13, 2017)

Avoiding the apparent argument about who is what, and who said what, in the posts and focusing on the male / female issue ...

Insights into any character can be found in the extremes.  In this case suicide of real adult people (teenagers don't quite fit the stats).  Women tend to suicide over loss of relationships.  Men tend to suicide over loss of money/income.   While that won't help with mannerisms etcetera, it can help with writing the underlying characteristics and life focus, or conversations about how your particular character doesn't fit the normal mold. "I'm not like most men who tend to live in some level of social isolation, my friends are the rock foundation of my life . . ."


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I'm not going to argue with your reply point-by-point as I have no desire to add to the dross of this thread. I will say one or two things, however.
> 
> The first and foremost being that I will reply to any thread I choose in any way I choose. That's the price you pay for posting on an open forum. You may not like, or value what I have to say, but that doesn't matter to me, because I'm not writing for your edification. I mentioned, "inexperienced writers", which you seem to think was a reference to you. It was not. You are obviously a technically proficient writer. When I look at threads like this and see where I believe there exists an opportunity to make writing seem less complicated and intimidating to young writers, I will say so. I might even say so a number of times in hopes that the thought doesn't get buried under all the other verbiage. I was simply being honest when I said threads which, in my opinion, add unnecessary complexity to the act of writing "get under my skin". I don't understand why that would be an issue for you. I've been around writing discussions for a long time and have seen many people who treat writing as some great mystery. Some complicated puzzle-box that requires special knowledge to open. When I see a discussion taking that tack, I'll usually get involved to present a contrasting view-point. That contrast isn't always welcome. I can deal with that.




Ohhhhh! I’m sorry, I️ guess the fact you (1) Quoted me directly in the post preface (2) Addressed me directly “That’s all you learned? Seriously?” and (3) Made numerous references to “you” throughout the post’s beginning middle and end kind of gave me the impression you were talking to me and saying it for my “edification”. But no. Now apparently it was for some mythical “young writers” (?) who I️ do not actually recall comment, ask questions, etc at any point in this thread - it was mainly just a dozen people arguing against what I️ (wasn’t) asking about. 

Yawn. 

I️ suppose I️ should have known the next twist in this comedy dance must certainly be to appeal to some kind of “oh were appealing to the masses” stuff. Well I’m not buying it. I️ suspect you probably realize your prior response (to attack me for saying what I️ thought learned) was not appropriate in the least and are now pivoting to pretend it was for somebody else’s benefit. I️ also do not care much as I️ feel I️ fairly adequately responded to this nonsense already. Good luck with those “young, experienced” writers  of yours - I️ mean that sincerely. 



> You accuse me of (repeatedly) getting involved in this discussion to express my views. Out of 108 posts, so far, I've mentioned my views on character development 6 times, and in at least three of those I gave specific ideas of how I work, or how the idea could be approached. I don't think a 6% participation rate is particularly egregious, but you may disagree.
> 
> Counter sigh.



No, Terry, actually I️ “accused” several people of that - all the ones who repeated the same useless baloney. Sam was one I️ remember. Others I️ cannot remember by name and don’t care to start arguments anew with. So no, it was not for “your edification” either. You were but a minor component of the broader problem. You HAVE made a couple of good points, which I️ have now repeatedly cited and paid respect to, but unfortunately that is now being clouded by your misreading/mischaracterizing of facts. That sort of thing  “gets under my skin”.  

The only reason what I️ said featured in a response to you is because you are now the (only) person harping on about how wise and worth-listening-to these views are and suggesting I️ ought to be paying some sort of homage to them in reporting what I️ learned. And I️ am telling you that no, they’re cheap and unhelpful philosophical gibberish that is tolerable the first time it reads it’s head but when repeatedly recooked tends to get very rubbery.

But you, all right...so you made six posts (probably, I’ll go by your math) and chose to repeat the same point in three of them - per you. That would be a fifty percent “broken record syndrome”. Let’s try to get that down to under thirty percent next time, can we? I️ don’t need the exact same much-loved wisdom rekindled three times without prompting. Neither do the “young inexperienced writers” - I️ asked them all, don’t worry. We are all agreed we are perfectly able to digest “write unique characters” and other gems of staggering genius the first time.

Yes, one can say what they want in an “open forum”, but that does not mean it has any worth. But no, please, do tell me again how disingenuous my question was and how I️ only need to “focus on my characters”. The choir do love a good preachin’.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

Jason said:


> Your example of menstruation is a particularly good one for several reasons.  Obviously you (or I) can't experience it so are handicapped on writing convincingly about it. However, there are two perspectives to consider.  First, how do women talk about it?  In my very candid life experience growing up as the only male in the house and the baby so was mostly invisible, I was the "fly on the wall" around women's conversations.  Regarding menstruation, women almost never "talk" about it.  The rather rare real talking comes when a young teen is experiencing problems and that is almost always a one on one conversation that usually leads to a nurse getting involved. If the conversation is brought up in company (think coffee at the kitchen table between friends) it is given some meaningful looks, then suggested that they get professional medical help. That thread goes nowhere for most book situations so can pretty much be ignored.
> 
> What really happens is women, in the company of other women, quip about it.  A short comment is about all it gets.  The comment can be humorous, sympathetic, or just about any of the emotive perspectives you can apply to any standard unavoidable inconvenience of life.  It's a big deal for some women, and a non-deal for others - character driven.  The quips can be so small a man in the situation probably wouldn't notice.
> 
> ...



Thanks James. I️ come from a similar situation to you (a house full of sisters) and you’re absolutely spot on.

I️ addressed the inherent problem of true believability in my response to Emma Sohan a little bit up and I️ agree. I️ mainly write horror type fiction so as far as direct experience it’s even more divorced from what I️ have personally encountered (mostly, heh) so yeah, totally a matter of imagination and, to a lesser degree, research (I’m not one of those people who are into writing letters to serial killers or anything). 

In any case I’m not actually that sold that personal experience can help with everything. I️ would suspect that, for sake of argument, even if I️ had murdered somebody (I️ have not, for the record...) the sharpness of the moment would dictate little could be committed to memory for use in a later writing project. That would be rather nutty.

But menstruation and the day to day feminine aspects of life? Yeah, I️ think that’s something that probably does need experienced to be written about authentically. I️ think your idea of trying ones damndest and then asking for a frank assessment of how believable it is or is not from a woman is the way to go. That’s kind of what I️ have decided to do with my WIP. Basically a method of trial and error. 

- Obviously the main hurdle is finding somebody willing to read (and reread) the work who will also provide an opinion that is completely honest.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

Jason said:


> Avoiding the apparent argument about who is what, and who said what, in the posts and focusing on the male / female issue ...
> 
> Insights into any character can be found in the extremes.  In this case suicide of real adult people (teenagers don't quite fit the stats).  Women tend to suicide over loss of relationships.  Men tend to suicide over loss of money/income.   While that won't help with mannerisms etcetera, it can help with writing the underlying characteristics and life focus, or conversations about how your particular character doesn't fit the normal mold. "I'm not like most men who tend to live in some level of social isolation, my friends are the rock foundation of my life . . ."



Interesting on the suicides. Is there data for that? Not that it matters much if not, I️ just have no thought of it before. It sounds plausible for sure.

An idea I️ had for a story a little while back included a man who suffers from post partum depression - with symptoms that were rather like that of a woman’s. It didn’t work out because, well, it just didn’t seem quite right for me but in that case I️ found myself often contemplating the whole “I’m not like most men...” thing.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Interesting on the suicides. Is there data for that? Not that it matters much if not, I️ just have no thought of it before. It sounds plausible for sure.
> 
> An idea I️ had for a story a little while back included a man who suffers from post partum depression - with symptoms that were rather like that of a woman’s. It didn’t work out because, well, it just didn’t seem quite right for me but in that case I️ found myself often contemplating the whole “I’m not like most men...” thing.



Actually 20% of adult suicides are female and 80% male. However, it's not the financial, or job loss, which is the primary stressor for men, it's an overwhelming sense of being a burden, or of being worthless. Sure that is often exacerbated by financial problems, but is also caused by health issues (particularly in older men), and depression.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 13, 2017)

:nightmare:

As shriveled old Yoda would say: "Strong in here, the Dark Side is! In before the lock, I am!"


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2017)

Kyle R said:


> :nightmare:
> 
> As shriveled old Yoda would say: "Strong in here, the Dark Side is! In before the lock, I am!"



Don't worry, Kyle. I'm not.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> But you, all right...so you made six posts (probably, I’ll go by your math) and chose to repeat the same point in three of them - per you.



Just for the sake of accuracy, what I actually said was that 3 times I had given specific suggestions, or examples of what I do.


----------



## Sam (Nov 13, 2017)

This thread is getting out of hand and becoming dangerously close to a flame war. 

Nevertheless, it has merit. I'm locking it for 24 hours and putting those who have posted* on notice: cut out the bickering and get back on topic when it re-opens in 24 hours, or it will be locked permanently.  

*I have posted in this thread, so that warning includes me: I am not immune to, or above, moderation.


----------



## Sam (Nov 14, 2017)

Okay, let's try this again, people.


----------



## aj47 (Nov 14, 2017)

This thread reminds me of one awhile back about white folks writing minority characters of substance.  

The thing is, the farther a character is from who you are, the more work it is to portray them well.  This is true whether you're acting or writing.  As the writer, you get to make the call on how much work you do (as with SPaG and the rest of it).


----------



## ironpony (Nov 14, 2017)

I feel that sometimes society has more of a problem accepting flaws in female characters than they do in male characters, and this where a lot of the criticism of writers come in, as that maybe readers expect female characters to be too perfect? Like for example in one of my WIPs, I was told by a couple of people critiquing it that they felt the female character, was weak and powerless in her situation.   But she was suppose to be.  I felt that if it were a male character, they wouldn't see this as a problem, but if you have a female character who is powerless and feels too weak to be able to do anything in her predicament, then it's in bad taste it seems.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 15, 2017)

ironpony said:


> I feel that sometimes society has more of a problem accepting flaws in female characters than they do in male characters, and this where a lot of the criticism of writers come in, as that maybe readers expect female characters to be too perfect? Like for example in one of my WIPs, I was told by a couple of people critiquing it that they felt the female character, was weak and powerless in her situation.   But she was suppose to be.  I felt that if it were a male character, they wouldn't see this as a problem, but if you have a female character who is powerless and feels too weak to be able to do anything in her predicament, then it's in bad taste it seems.



I think this ties in with something I think I've already said - the dearth of female characters in a lot of media. I think it's worse in movies than in books, and maybe better on TV, but in general... if there's only one significant female character, as there often is, then she's going to get a lot of attention, and probably a lot of criticism. If she has stereotypical characteristics people will say she's a stereotype, if she has non-stereotypical characteristics people will say she's unrealistic. But if there are multiple female characters, there are multiple chances to show a variety of personalities, and a lot of the criticism will go away.

I think some authors read the criticisms of female characters and shy away from writing them; really, it would be more effective if they wrote _more_ female characters.


----------

