female/male writers: Discuss

As an experiment I suggest the following: Purchase a copy of the book 'The Good Terrorist' by Doris Lessing (you can purchase it for next to nowt used from amazon by clicking the above link) I reckon it's an extremely good example of a book written in a way that man would never write. If we all have a read, it'll be easier to discuss ideas based around something. Plus I think it's a great book.

Good plan. Clicking now.

It's a little late to claim it's 'beneath you' after you've proved yourself a willing component of the process. Now, do I believe that you don't give a shit about me, or what I think of you? Maybe. Maybe you're that puffed up and arrogant. I, for one, am not, and I do care about what people think of me, to varying degrees. It affects the way I think about myself, and you know it. Or if you don't know it by now, you're pretty damn dense. If I was arrogant - if I was self-adoring - I wouldn't respond to any of this. I only respond to things that affect me, in one way or another. Emma - you want me to stop complaining? Stop saying stuff like this: "just accept how people can respond differently..." I do! Stop telling me to do things I already do! Stop telling me to be things I already am! This is precisely what is pissing me off so much! I accept people respond to me differently - what I am imploring of you all is that you actually accept what I'm telling you about myself, instead of going by your contradictory judgements. Why, for example, does Liana keep insisting I am self-adoring, when I tell her quite plainly that I'm not, when I have never thought of myself as better in any way? Because she insists on trusting her misguided character judgements over what I'm actually telling her.

Fergal...about Winterson... I'm a bit scared of recommending a starter..'cos Andrew is also very keen and might say different...oh, bugger...I shouldn't be so self-deprecating, eh?? Anyway...I personally would say 'The Passion'...an earlier one...or...the latest...'Lighthousekeeping'...if you do buy...click on Amazon through the site...*plug* hope you enjoy... xx

Did anyone ever buy 'The Good Terrorist' by Doris Lessing, like I suggested some distance up this thread? Come on, it would have ben a dead interesting thing to talk about....

I did and I am approximately 2/3 of the way through.... anyone else?

Because what you SAY and what you DO are entirely different things... it's not that difficult surely? Will you get off my back? It's like being followed by a bloody jack russell.

"what I am imploring of you all is that you actually accept what I'm telling you about myself" It's very hard to do that, when you don't accept other people's honest responses to you as valid.

>>And why has it not been cherripied?<< Hopefully because, as I said in the discussion about this piece, it is flawed. Fergal herself admits it was dashed off. It is nowhere near as good as her other stuff.

I didn't read any female writers bar Sue Townsend until I discovered Pat Barker. It is an interesting point Fergal, certainly holds true in my experience. I myself am female or at least I was last time I looked.

Just read your Bloomsbury piece Emma. Think it's brill actually. Thanks Neil for what you said. *beams* Glad you liked the Boris story too. I've wanted to write something about the media's way of dealing with death for ages but didn't know how to approach it. I think it's true that sometimes the *thought* of a woman writer is enough to put people off. People have an idea of what a woman will write about (romance, the home, etc) and they think it won't be exciting or something. I think there are loads of good female writers (and male writers) published out there, or on here at ABC. I guess you just have to put the words out there and see what happens. Male/female/non gender specific.

Oh, thank you Hayley!! In terms of gender, the original write was very elusive and non-gender specific (!) gawd...didn't know how issue-oriented my stuff might become (eeek). The final draught, which I'm still not happy with, was just a way of making something more complete out of something originally bound by competition rules. (100 lines etc). I think the gender thing is more obvious now, which I'm not sure works, as Neil said something about it being important to keep the mystery etc. Anyway, I wrote it for my own self-indulgent satisfaction, always the reason for me writing - therapy or self-indulgence. (makes me sound dreadful, help!) This piece has been picked up for publication in a crazy queerfest oriented mag for circulation at an event...hehehehehe. This is really way out for me!!! Here I am, little mumsy, three kids in tow...publishing stuff in some highly issue-driven underground mag!!! Oh, well, if life takes me there, I'll trot along for the fun of it. I was going all red when I read Justyn's post about him not liking the subject matter that women commonly write about. I always write about r'ships, domestic stuff - however, have also done a bit of travel writing, etc. I would also like to think that I am striving to bring a fresh spin on all these matters...hence I like to verge on erotica...('cos I'm a terribly, naughtily passionate person) and also to write with quite a hard-hitting edge when it comes to domestic subjects. Psychological stuff I would like to write with a unique style, though my influences come out as obvious (Winterson, Eliot, Woolf, Atwood, Alan Bennet(!), Larkin etc etc) This Bloomsbury piece was something in a quite different style from my normal (oh, but I don't really have a normal - do I ?? Dunno), and was geared around emulating Woolf (it has direct quotes from 'Mrs Dalloway') and Atwood's present continuous tense, which I love. Andrew Pack received it so well - he slapped himself on the wrist for saying I write better if I keep it simple. However, it's a terribly intense way to write, and don't know where I could take it further...I'm all washed up on the shores of confusion lately... Ooops, aware that this is wrong forum for this discussion...*looks round for scary trolls about to give me a severe bashing for abusing forum space*. Anyway, thanks again...hehehehe

will get that through site too... good to keep a good thing going. Thanks for recommendation - doesn't matter if Andrew would say different as I asked for your advice - I could always read Andrew's recommendation too if he has one. Thanks Emma. Don't know if you've read the thread where I revealed my 'real name' (it was hardly exciting stuff seeing as I'm quite new on here and nobody was that interested - ahem), which is Hayley. So I'm not a 49 year old man as some thought, but actually a 27 year old woman. It all makes sense now.

Oh, and going back to the begining of this thread, and what we used to read when we first started out. Well, personally, I came to literature 'proper' a bit late really. I wasn't into reading at all as a child, due to being a tomboy who needed to escape the family home. I was out on my bike most nights. Later, I bullied myself into reading some teen fiction, older children's stuff - mainly ghost or horse related stuff. Then stuff that was more teen-oriented - Paul Zindell anyone?? hehehe Anyway, not until I got to A level age did I start to discover the riches in literature...I think it was mainly something that went alongside my own self-discovery as alternative in the sexual sense. Therefore women writers were what I went for big-time...and not the usual 'romance' or 'domestic' stuff. I'm talking Iris Murdoch, Woolf, Winterson, Atwood, er...and any alternative stuff I could get my hands on, which was less good in quality but satisfied my need to understand myself better. Anything from 'The Well of Lonliness' to Lisa Alther (oh, and of course 'Spare Rib' - anyone remember THAT!!!!). However, having said all that, I was also doing a literature A level course which drew me in to the riches of male writers who I still love...Larkin for one, E.M.Forster..and later, during both of my degree courses and further studies, I discovered the symbolist movement, and T.S.Eliot...and read more avidly along the Booker Prize sort of lines. A male writer I love is, for example, Robertson Davies or Richard Burns. Anyway...the issue of how to reach an audience of men while having a female name on the spine of your book. Well - it's an interesting one. Non gender-specific stuff still ends up with a queer following...(Winterson), but Atwood has cracked it hasn't she..? Men do somehow discover women writers finally, by recommendation, and if they are really willing and driven to explore literature, then they shouldn't ignore it. If they do, then frankly, they aren't the audience I would want to reach anyway. There is nothing more wonderful than meeting a man who has the ability to see beyond the gender-related issues in writing and get straight to the quality of the art itself, regardless of gender. He is a rare creature indeed.

That's made me think Jude, You're right - I didn't read many books by women really til I got to Uni (about 20%) - and I'm a woman. If women aren't reading books by women, why would men?

I think it's partially the fact that we live in a society where the idea of what makes a good story is dictated by what men think makes a good story. 'Good Stories' are full of action and incident, with a series of exciting episodes tied together into some sort of big important statement. They come to a climax. They have punch. 'Good stories' always seem to be about big things, big events, big characters, big ideas. 'Good stories' just grow more sophisticated at being 'good stories' the older you get, gain more shading and reality compared to the more simplistic 'good stories' you read as a kid. It seems that many female writers don't write 'good stories' in that sense. If you look at how many novels that concern themselves with things other than big, exciting 'good stories' are marketed, they are shoehorned into being big and exciting 'good stories'. It is certainly made sure that they don't appear to be just books about relationships. If they are books about relationships, they become something other than big and important. They often become 'chick lit', or 'romances' or 'women's books'. It all puts me in mind of the formula that seems to have been inherent in B-movie production for the Drive -In market. It put forward the idea that the perfect target audience for any film is a teenage boy. A man will always be interested in what a teenage boy was interested in. A woman will always go with her man's choice of film, if she wants to get taken to the Drive In. A teenage boy will obviously love what is aimed at him... 'Good stories' full of action and event with a bit of sex thrown in for good measure. May be a tangent, may be not.

Mark may have a point. While many of my favourite authors are female, I have read quite a lot of books by female authors where you finish and think "well, there's just a bunch of stuff that happened" rather than there being a plot in the traditional sense. This is not to say that women are BAD writers - in general, when you read a book and feel that way, it is not a book that you didn't ENJOY (male writers who can't plot are bad writers - *coughs, looks at self in non-existent handy mirror* whereas female writers seem to intend to do this) Perhaps Mark is right - the market is driven by what people want and what people mostly want is the same stuff as they've had before, only with a twist. I found Carol Shields, for example, a hard writer to read. Gorgeous sentences, lovely images, but after about forty pages I thought 'I don't know what this is ABOUT - and worse, I'm not sure it is ABOUT anything' That makes it hard to grasp - and though one of my favourite books is the ultimate ungraspable book, The Waves and another is Ulyssess where chuff-all really happens and nothing gets resolved, the casual reader wants neatness and precision rather than emotion. Maybe female writers get closer to something that is real life than fiction, and we'd rather read fiction. These are all sweeping generalisations, you understand. I'd take Atwood over Amis or McEwan any day of the week and when Winterson is on form the only writer who comes close is Jim Crace on top form.

"Wuthering Heights" put me off female writers...I had to do it for GCSE English. What's Virginia woolf like? I might try her but can't bear soppy romance.

Which ever way I look at it I wish I had started earlier in life as I think there are so many good writers out there you people included then I could claim hopefully to be amongst you but my stuff is so old hat now I know it would be laughed off the pages and that would hurt me because of all the effort I put into it at the time I love almost every peice and should have confessed this to Tony a long time ago as he deserved better of me at the time. Hopefully I can rectify that now because I feel it needs doing, when Tony came out of the blue and so magnanimously made me a most generous offer to have a look at my stuff and even get it typed up for me, he said at the time it was a one off and though I felt so honoured!! and on cloud nine and will never ever!!! forget it my pride still stood in the way as it still would today, whats the saying pride comes before a fall or in this case unutterable stupidity on my part my only excuse is shame one can't help how ones made. Not at all saying to all of you honest, just covering my back, I haven't writen this for effect but only because in my mind I know its all perfectly true...

Was interesting to read everyone's points. I was interested in Andrew's idea about fiction and emotion and people trying to write 'reality'. Also Mark's point about aiming at the male market. I like to think that a writer is trying to use words to create questions, thoughts and a philosophical and pyscological exploration of the way they see the world. Avoiding cliche and the words of others or the tropes we've been spoonfed from childhood is really hard. The best writers challenge these things but still have a thread for the reader to follow. Whether that be plot, or a time frame (thank you Mr Joyce) it's needed. We need the book to be taking us somewhere. We need to be led, and to make conclusions for ourselves. We want our minds to work while we do it. That's what literary fiction is for. Leading on from what Mark and Andrew said,I also think that we all (men and women) presume that women aren't going to be telling stories about 'big' things so we aren't as interested. A lot of it has to do with presumption and preconception. A really good male friend of mine had never read a book by a woman until this year. He is 26. He's just read Muriel Spark, Patricia Duncker, A.S.Byatt, Kate Atkinson and Margaret Atwood. He enjoyed all of them for different reasons. One thing he hadn't expected was the humour involved... I think there are (in this country too) some amazing female writers working at the moment, literary writers, who know about plot and story and also about intellectual thought without trying to write like 'men'. I just think they're not being thrown out there. I dare anyone to read Hallucinating Foucault or The Deadly Space between by Duncker and not be impressed with her storycraft. I also think that interest in emotions and psychological make-up is often seen as specifically female... Maybe we've been trained to think 'big things' can only be explored through road trips or court trials.... Or something. I'm not sure what I think really. I noticed in my workshops at UEA that the women writers in the class would often automatically look to the men for comments on their work rather than the women. Maybe we've all got it in our heads that men hold 'weight' and women are a bit on the 'fluffy' side. There is, of course, a difference between storytelling in the commercial fiction sense, which would be the chick-lit stuff, or the boyzone stuff which is similar and based on superfical male/female divides that will appeal to either/or. I'm not really a fan of chick-lit due to the shallow nature of it, even though lots of it is very well told. I like Bernard Cornwell novels to 'switch off', but that is an entirelly different reason for reading. When it comes to literary fiction however, I'm not sure.... I understand why people like McEwan, but sometimes I think he's given gravitas not just because of his writing... God I'm waffling now. You've all made my brain work really hard. Jude - I hated Wuthering Heights, despite my (male) teacher's protestations. Was sixteen when I read it, so don't know how I'd feel now... Virginia Woolf isn't soppy romance, it's more sort of psycological states of unrealness or something. I don't think it's everyone's cup of tea... I quite like her but if you didn't like Wuthering Heights then you might not like it. What sort of male writers do you like?

I like Graham Greene, Aldous Huxley, HG Wells, Saint Augustine, CS Lewis, Jostein Gaarder, Loved Yann Martell's "Life of Pi" Sci Fi - Jeff Noon, Steve Aylott, some Tolkein One book I read recently by a female author that was excellent was "The God of Small things" by Arundhati Roy...I highly recommend. jude

Thank you Emma, I always say to my wife that you don't get many of me to the pound! Though from the above posts I reckon there are a lot of men on here who've discovered good women writers. One of the problems is that the chick-lit stuff is published by the bucketload and it clutters up the shelves both in bookstores and in the library. The sort I mean is where the heroine is a London have-it-all girl with a great job and lively social/sexual life but just can't quite meet Mr. Right, at least for 200 more pages. As a genre I suppose it's all right but it doesn't do anything for me. I read Erica Jong's "Fear Of Flying" as a left-round-a-foreign-swimming-pool book and thought it was marvellous. My first encounter with lady authors was of course Enid Blyton; a world of dodgy fairyland creatures and, in "real life" stories, stern father figures, sinister black people, spies, secret passages, boarding schools ... and George the closet 1950s lesbian. When the criminals threaten to beat Dick and Julian, George is also in for it rather than reveal that she's really a girl - I used to wonder why! (real girly Anne's back in the gypsy caravan making lunch and misses out on the rough stuff). Crap of course but essential in my upbringing ... must have a beaker of Tizer!

You could try Muriel Spark if you like Greene... They were friends and have shared themes. She is funny too. Just read The Ballad of Peckham Rye and thought it fabulous. Wasn't sure why. I enjoyed The God of Small Things too. I liked Wild Boy by Jill Dawson too recently, can't get enough Kate Atkinson because she is so clever and funny and yet her stories are very tightly plotted. Carson McCullers' Member of the Wedding is a brilliant older book. I just like well-written, thought-provoking fiction. Whether that be by woman/man/invertibrae... I'm actually a big American Fiction fan. Though am attacking Proust at the moment. Not for pretentious reasons, but because I want to know what the fuss is about. Am on page 3 of The Guermantes Way. Jay, you and I must have put those last posts up at the same time.. wasn't ignoring you.

Is it perhaps that readers want their nutrients wrapped up in tasty calories? I.e that if what a writer is going to do is explore big issues, we'd quite like there to be a gripping yarn as well, just in case the big issues don't quite grip on their own. No reason whatsoever why a female writer can't do this - I'd defy anyone to read The Passion, or Blind Assassin and not be desperate to know what is happening. All I can say is what I've found, and that is that most of the books I've read that have been a bit like jazz have been by female authors. I've read much worse books by bad male authors, but the flaws seem to be in other areas. For example, a lot of people really rate Toni Morrison, but I just found that there was nothing to get my teeth into - what conflict there was for the characters was on a small scale and I simply didn't care enough. I always wanted to like and understand jazz, but it just tends to wash over me, and it can sometimes be the same with female writers - that it sounds nice, but it doesn't really move me. I don't know why this is so, and I'm aware that in having this discussion I run the risk of looking like a sexist jerk who would rather read Wilbur Smith than Iris Murdoch. I wouldn't, but I'd rather read Steinbeck or Updike than Murdoch, because I get character and issue AND a story with them. Virginia Woolf is so NOT soppy romance. Her work has a sort of ethereal quality about it that can put people off, but she makes her language work hard. Like Ray Chandler in that regard - you can sit with her books and a blue pencil and not cross anything much out.

Hehehe - Enid Blyton never did anything for me...anyway, that George character is really a middle class laddette. Not my type at all...hehehe. The sort that later goes and gets into a ballgown to marry the boy from the neighbouring farm.

True about Woolf. I happen to be a big fan of all that semi-transparent envelope stuff. I know what you mean. I'd rather read Steinbeck than just about anybody... I don't know whether this is because I've been trained in masculine thought... That I put 'weight' to the male, like I said before. You are no way near verging on the sexist, I don't think Andrew. I'm going to think some more. I'm still not saying what I mean. Damn those semantics.

Fergal - I don't know who you are, but I recognise a UEA reading list when I see one! Spark, Byatt et al. Would've been nice if I could make that comment sound like a Holmesian piece of detective work, but I've just noticed you mention the Uni anyway. Ah, well. Remember Mark making a similar point yonks ago, when we were talking about the lack of female perspective in one of my more ancient pieces. I don't have any stats to hand (Missi says they're worthless anyway,) but I've never detected this strain of masculine dominance in literature. If anything, I have to stop myself being reactionary against an over-eagerness to appreciate female writers. I see no literary magazines exclusively for male writers, and while you could claim this is redressing the balance, it's hard to appreciate that when you see no imbalance to start with. I also get the sense that this urge to 'appreciate' female writers translates, in many cases, as straightforward patronisation. Does it come down to breadth of appeal, perhaps? I don't think I read more male writers because I encounter more, but because female writers seem to be marketed to a narrower range of taste. I can't put a finger on what exactly I like - not the beefy plot type Mark describes, certainly - but it *is* a realm female writers rarely enter, whereas a fair number of male ones do. And I deny (passionately!) that my tastes are anything near the social norm. I like a few female poets - Chase Twichell, Sarah Maguire (through Liana's recommendation,) Bernadine Evaristo, couple of others whose books I don't own. They're good at what they do, but generally, again, they don't seem to have the breadth of style or subject that my favourite male poets have. One book of Twichell or Maguire feels like all I need. I wanna get more Evaristo, but that's partly because I met her and I like her. Interestingly, once you get into music, women seem to be on very even terms. You get kooks like Kate Bush and Tori Amos, while female writers generally seem to remain very sombre and serious. Aha! What about the male sense of humour? I do like a sense of humour in my literature. Now, the male sense of humour is famously likeable to both sexes - it attracts women (it does!) and inspires in men a sense of camaraderie. Women's humour (as exemplified in chick lit?) seems to be completely for women. I rarely get it, except in the case of someone like Wendy Cope, or professional comediennes. The only other point I'd make is that it's so hard to become a successful writer in any case that the matter of which gender, or race, or any other, has it easier is pretty academic. Everyone has to try bloody hard, and needs luck on their side. Do we need campaigns for one type of writer over another? Generally though, I don't really have a beef with the status quo at the moment, and if the ABC 'sample poll' is anything to go by, I'm less likely than anyone to ever win big, appreciative audiences.

I do, Emma, but I can't accept what you tell me about myself when I know it isn't true. Liana - what I DO may be different, but I have never DONE self-adoring. I would know about it if I had.

Hi Fergal never spoken to you before so this is a first, just like to say thanks for acknowledging me and you were right we did post about the same time as for the ignoring bit no worries one gets used to it I don't blame them there young and quite a few are intelligence but a few more old cronies on here and them and I would be having a whale of a time shame more don't learn computers...

This is generalisation I know, but I find that women are great generalists whereas men love specifics; thre are, for example, some general interest men's magazines but nothing like the range of similar magazines for women - a lot of men will buy a car or motorcycle or sport mag instead. Similarly with hobbies - a lot of women like birdwatching, for example - to go to a nice reserve and see a few good birds and visit the teashop ... only men are daft (and obsessive) enough to charter a helicopter to see a rarity in the Shetlands! With literature, a lot of men write genre - crime, westerns, war, sci-fi, etc - but go through the A-Z section of "general" literature and you'll find more female writers than male. I read a lot of modern female authors - especially short story compilations - because relationships are always worth reading and writing about, and I think this will help my own writing better than fantasy or murder mysteries. My writing group, incidentally, is about 75% male and I regret this because I greatly value female input. But I'm odd ...

Hen... loathe as I am to continue this.. and I *am* loathe to continue it... when lots of people say black is black, doesnt that tell you that it might possibly BE black? I will listen to the man that says it is white - then I will look at it again, and if i still see black, then I will just decide that we think differently, and move on. You will stand on a podium and yell for hours until people are so exhausted of listening, they agree with you. Now, I am willing to accept that you are a totally different person than this analogy. Truly, I am. But when you perpetuate this idea, and the other - lets call it a myth - about you as being a self adoring person by starting threads which ask people to look at you and talk about you, truly - do you think it does you any favours? It's NOT true that you have always been - or indeed ARE unwelcome here - it simply just isn't true. I dont know why you feel it to be so. When you rubbish people, or say unkind things and they retaliate, are you really surprised? Because I'm not. When you called me some truly awful things, it didnt hurt me, but (I'll freely admit) childishly, I retaliated by saying unkind things I suspected to be true of you. You cant ride roughshod over people either here, or in reality. I know you possibly dont in out there in the so called real world, but you definitely do here. The instant someone disagrees with you, you batter them down with a dogged almost autistic insistance that you are right. If I disagree, I disagree. I dont keep on and on and on. We met, and I didn't dislike you. I found you to be gentle, amusing (a little excitable and argumentative with your pal, but hey, you were *very* drunk) and nothing like the person you come across as on here. And you? Did you find me to be a bitter and vengeful man hater? I doubt it... because the simple fact is, I'm not. I dont like one man, but thats my personal problem - I'm not about to start explaining my reasons for that. I'm sure you have women you don't like too - Betsy for example? You say that I harp on about your youth - no, I dont. I think you probably mention your youth more than anyone else does!! *You* harp on about middle aged women being the only acceptable face of ABC, which is loony.. I can think of three or four in amongst hundreds of other different people who are active on the forums. Rokkitnite doesnt seem to have the same problems, yet he is the same age as you (give or take) - so whats the difference?

Fergal - I do apologise for this...

This is very much like the box thread. Liana - to use your analogy, a bunch of people who only know what they know of me from a silly Internet forum, and a few brief meetings, are insisting that I admit that white is black. I *know* what I believe - about your poetry, and more importantly, about myself. Yet you insist you know better. In addition, the people who've known me for umpteen years have *not* found me consistently arrogant, or self-loving. They know my faults are different ones. Why, pray tell, should I overturn their opinions in favour of yours? How would you feel if I spent this long trying to convince you that, in actual fact, you believe God is a monkey? Not trying to convince you that God is a monkey - but that this is what *you* believe. *That* is what you're doing, to all ends and purposes, when you tell me I'm self-adoring etc. "It's NOT true that you have always been - or indeed ARE unwelcome here..." That's not what I said. I said I have "felt" unwelcome. And that's the truth of the matter. I feel like any opinion I express is likely to be met with a personal rebuke, and accusations of who-knows-what. Why? Because it usually is. "... because the simple fact is, I'm not." I know. But imagine if this whole argument had been about whether or not you were, with me and Missi and Emma insisting that you were, and refusing to believe anything you said to the contrary. That's what it's been like for me. And imagine that you have always felt, on some level, that people believed this about you, and you'd already tried dispelling it in other ways, none of which were successful. As for Besse - I tried really hard to like her, as I do with everyone. We spent a year not getting on, with me trying to set that right, because we had the same friends. In the end, she left a card filled with insults for me, couched in sincere terms. *Everyone*, even people who were better friends with her than they were with me, agreed it was unnecessary and harsh. It was that singular action which finally turned me, along with several others, against her. And I told you why I started this thread. Higher up. Or, at least, I told Neil. I wanted to prompt the very accusations and judgements that have been pissing me off all this time, so that I would have solid quotes to use. I've told you - I tried being quiet, and not drawing attention to myself, and it doesn't work. You still go on with it. I was waiting for you to bring up Rokkit. Why doesn't he have the same problem? Because he knows better than me when to keep his opinions to himself, when to be 'funny' instead of serious, and when to ignore people who have no intention of seeing eye to eye with him.

So many points! Hen, yep to UEA. Am here finishing my MA. I don't suppose I was saying that women should be championed more or anything... I was just interested in the amount of men I know who don't read books by women much. <> I see where you are coming with that, but just asking blokes to give female writers a go isn't the same as patronisation is it? I just thought it was suggesting a new range of writing to read that perhaps they might not have thought of... As for women's sense of humour appealing to just women, if this was true I'd have to be a lesbian by now. My sense of humour is one of the only things I've got and I think (hope?) that men and women find my writing funny (when it's at it's best). I think blokes find a funny woman just as sexy as women find a funny man sexy (though sometimes a funny woman can be a threat)... (try reading my story Colour Central. I think it is funny. Yep) I don't mean people should be forced to like women's writing just because it is women's writing. That would be daft. I just wonder why there are so many presumptions about 'women's' writing in the first place... That's all. I like what you said about specifics and generalistics (did I just make that up?) Neil. I think that might be true sometimes (although generalisations are not ever particularly helpful and me starting this strain is a bit disingenious in that way). I suppose I just think it's sad that perhaps there a lot of books all genders might like but they wouldn't give them a go because of all the baggage, presumptions, or just misunderstanding. I'd like books to be books and for everyone to read them...

I don't insist I know better at all. All I say, is what I am shown... I have said *numerous* times that you may well be different in reality, and that indeed i have found you to be so... However, this is how you come across here. I can't help that, how can I change the way you present? You conveniently ignore this, *every* time I say it. I'll say it again, but I doubt it will make a difference. You want to bring up the horse thread? Good. Go back and look at your language, and look at the language the ones who you disagree with use. You are foot stomping. You are demanding that they agree, give it up, accept you are right. You see? And if I said I wasnt x.y or z, and you, missi and emma said I was - you know what? I'd look again.

Horrible thought - is Enid Blyton the top-selling female author of all time? She wrote 700 books apparently. During my website trawl I found that a guy at Bolton University has done a PhD in Enid Blyton ... a Noddy qualification if ever I've heard of one!

p.s. to Andrew - I agree about the nutrients/calories thing. I think it is a terrible idea to start a story/novel with a load of grand ideas with the idea of trying to 'say' something or 'teach the world'. You have to start with characters don't you? A story? People love (need?) stories

Interesting discussion. A cursory glance reveals only three lonely females on my bookshelf, one is non fiction so that doesn't count, another is rubbish, and the third is Annie Proulx, who is without doubt my favourite living novelist. I suspect that the skills necessary to structure a good story are similar to the skills that understand car engines and computer programs. This is why men both write stronger stories (with, as others have said, points, and plots) and have trouble with tales where the story is not so apparent. Women, it seems, can handle either.

I am never tempted to say that I think that women write better than men (that would be daft) Dan, but you got me with the <> Sarcasm or no. I liked it.

OK, I will admit that I come across abrasively. But if I tell you that I definitely do *not* think I'm superior, and do *not* love myself, I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting you to believe me. If I tell you, plain and simple, my intentions - what I'm thinking when I do these things - I think you should remember that the next time I come across differently, that there is an error in translation. Yeah, I do have a tendency to demand that people agree with me. But it's because I really do think I'm right, and haven't seen anything which proves the opposite - it is *not* because being right is a matter of pride, or because I think I must be right from the offset. If we'd been discussing, from the start, the issue of 'how I come across on the threads' maybe this wouldn't have got so heated. But it's not been about that - it's been about who I am, behind the threads.

Just re-read some of these posts and was taken by Andrew's 'Jazz' reference. Is it just that men are uncomfortable about looking at the big things through the little things?? Toni Morrison's Beloved is complex and about big things. Definitely. Maybe 'men' as you Andrew are talking about them are not willing to admit that the small things say a lot about the big things. Our lives are not in a vacuum are they? Each of us are in a political system, a class system, a gender system. All these things affect our daily lives, even the little choices we make and things we say that seem insignificant... That's why I love Kate Atkinson's Behind the Scenes at the Museum. It's about what is going on when the men are at war... Who's popping out the next generation? Who's maintaining the 'family', or trying to, or failing? Who does the thankless tasks that every takes as 'little'?? Throughout history we haven't seen women's roles as they have been... We've sidelined them, thought of them in that quaint idea of 'the home'. But think about it. The home is where we all start. It's what shapes us. Are well all in denial about where we came from and what makes us? Just a thought.

I have said that it's about how you *appear*. Repeatedly... and as David said wayyyy back up there, if as a writer you want to present one thing and yet people are reading another - then at least some of that faulty perception must lay with you... (and dont give me the old guff about the reader being the writer - please credit me with some knowledge here too) If I have hurt you, then I'm sorry, but you *must* understand why. It cuts both ways you know. If people dont agree with you, you can't bludgeon them until they do. It just doesnt work, and as you can see - it gives an apparently false impression of you.

Yep - she's the top-seller and still sells bucket loads. I must say I can't imagine my younger life without the magic faraway books (the new versions have changed Joe, Bessie and Fanny to something like Joe, Debbie and Claire or something), or the magic wishing chair books. or secret seven. I think they had their place (when I was 3-9ish) I'd love to read that guy's phd on her. I bet it's full of really interesting stuff. No really. I love studies into social and cultural phenomena.... they usually show what a bunch of repressed and inept bunch of individuals with a sex/death complex we really are. Bless us.

yep...I specialised in denial until v.recently...now I know home for me is feminine. Goes back a long, long way...and stretches forward even further.

Enid Blyton was fabulous... my younger daughters are reading faraway tree/enchanted forest/wishing chair now, as did my eldest... Enids' done more to encourage dreams and imagination than any other writer I know of. I have a shelf full of her stuff here... not too keen on the famous 5/secret 7 stuff though. I'd like to read that thesis too.. in fact I might do my own on her...

It's true Liana. I can't imagine that I would have ever wanted to write quite so much had I not read all those Blyton books. I loved all the magic stuff when I was a kid, all the potions and ointments and wispy haired fairies. I just wanted so badly to find a tree like it, and go on the slippery slip. Despite all the things that are probably wrong with it, the thing Blyton did so well is expan the imaganation of her child readers. She got them thinking about things that were'nt really there and putting entire landscapes and possibilities into their heads. I loved them when I was small. Really loved them.

GAWD - I was pissed last night....sorry. Out of my head. Carry on having an intelligent discussion....

I even have my original copy of the three golliwogs.. apparently is worth a fortune now...

Neil this was a long time ago and am taking a chance as it could be a bit boring for you but have just read your thread where you spoke about a book title "Fear of flying" and just wondered if it was about "having" the fear of flying reason being a song was bought out long time ago which I loved and have still got the tape to this day it was called "Feared" of flying singer was a women name "Charlie Dore" I like the story in the song so much I actuality wrote a play around that story and although I have still got it and had it looked at by my writing teacher at the time who lived in the heart of London but did also act on many stages in and around London and believe it because I got it from our Library she had only writen one book all about her life in prison because she murered her own Mother when quite young which she claimed was an accident but was not believed at the time hence the prison sentence it made fascinating reading anyway to draw this to a close she took a shine to my writen play and spoke highly of it but as I was in my sixties before I discovered writing and went to many writing classes loved them all including the many different things I was writing about at the time only not knowing to much about grammer and still don't never really did anything with them except for one peice which my son help with all the grammer and hence it was plubished twice a fact I have mentioned before on here but it is old hat to the writing writen today. Last but not least that teachers class was the best and the last one I ever attended... PS Did say at the beginning it could be boring but at least one can either skip bits or by pass altogether and it helps me with the old arthritis in the hands and fingers to tap away on the keyboard so all is not lost.

Re Enid Blyton - I read a great Alan Moore interview recently on research and conspiracy - he was saying that a friend decided to assume that little Noddy was the one true god and that Enid Blyton was a high priestess and see what evidence he could find to support this ridiculous assertion. After two months, he gave up, as he was convincing himself - he had found dozens of cave paintings showing small boy with a hat and a bell, loads of weird Noddy references in the Bible and Koran.