When people tell me I cannot understand male characters
I think of this review. It was initially published quite a while back on Goodreads, when I was a new author and wet behind the ears. Now the reviewer has put it on his own, excellent, review site, and I feel more justified in sharing it. This review and the conversation I had about it on Goodreads with Richard is probably the most treasured piece of feedback I’ve ever had, because it was proof that my writing had at least once done what I hoped it would do – help someone.
http://expendablemudge.blogspot.co.uk/p/glbtqall-genres.html
April 17th, 2013 in
Captain's Surrender | tags: book review, Captain's Surrender, women writing m/m, women writing men
What a wonderful endorsement! Ignore the idiot who said that you cannot understand male characters. (S)he probably has no real empathy and doesn’t understand how any other person actually feels. (It’s self-evident – anyone who did would never have said that to you.)
It’s not really a case of just one idiot. It’s quite a common idea among male readers (who are of course naturally invested in the idea that men are a different and superior species than women.) I was speaking only yesterday with someone writing for the fantasy genre who was told to take a male pseudonym because male readers won’t read stuff with male main characters if they know it was written by a woman. So yes, it wouldn’t bother me and I wouldn’t keep harping on about it if it was just one idiot. But unfortunately it’s an idea which is pretty much entrenched all over.
And some women won’t read an m/f romance written by a man! (do they realise that the “m” in m/f stands for man)? I saw a post on Goodreads by someone that she had
“…sat in on a panel of gay mystery writers, who ended up debating the merits of MM. The guy asking all the questions was an older gentleman who seemed hell bent on the idea that MM should not exist because who were women to write about that which we didn’t know, especially if they weren’t going to get the facts right? The others weren’t entirely supportive, but they weren’t totally on his side either.”
My response was:
“You did say that they were mystery writers? Then unless they were also policemen, surely they were also writing “about that which [they] didn’t know”, and by that logic probably also not getting “the facts right”.
Why is it that some people accept that authors can write very well about things they have not experienced first-hand, except m/m? – haven’t they noticed that in m/f romances the author can’t possibly have experienced what half of the couple feels either, and yet they don’t expect the book to say nothing about that person’s thoughts and feelings.”
Yes, so men who write romance take female pseudonyms, and everyone perpetuates the pretense because it makes everyone more comfortable that way. My guess is that the idea that men and women are intrinsically different is one of the underpinnings of our society. Men are different because they’re better, women are different because they’re more helpless and need to be taken care of. Women are different because they’re ideally suited to look after children. Men are different because they’re ideally suited to be leaders and rulers. It adds a bit of moral justification to the way humans have behaved for the last few millenia, and means that men can tell themselves that it’s not just because they’re physically stronger that they’re in charge. They’re actually just more suited for it.
That’s a great review 😀
Yes, it’s one I’ve depended on a lot over the last five years. Thanks!