Can women write?

parker kent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are a variety. Before I name them, I will add that like anybody predicting the future I am liable to get things horribly wrong due to unforeseen events that change the outlook of people (much like WW1 and 2, the Internet etc did to the 20th century).

So off the top of my head, I will give 2 examples that could conceivably remain popular over a few centuries. I would say books such as the Harry Potter series. It will be a classic children's series. It may not be to my taste, but it will be read by future generations of children as it is timeless. The Road is my personal favourite, McCarthy's style of writing is excellent and the topic is timeless as it focuses on a father and a son. Any book focusing on an apocalyptic future is always popular.

Just as I am typing, another question occurred to me, how would you describe a "modern" book? Since we are looking at three-hundred years time, I would count any book that is within 50 years, perhaps more. They will probably divide literature from the past 110 years into possibly 3 categories such as early 20th century, mid 20th century and post-digital revolution(then within these will be subsets like modernism etc). The current era will be linked in with whatever occurs in the next few decades. With the passing of time, our methods of dividing up 20th and 21st century literature will be changed to suit future generations. This is much in the same way that we now speak of 14th Century Literature or Renaissance Literature.

Or are you specifically referring to writers who are currently active? If not, then that opens up other possibilities such as Orwell, Woolf etc

Edit: I would add that we really have no way of knowing who will be remembered. I once read a list from early in the 20th century predicting what would be remembered in 100 years. Several notable writers were not included and many popular writers from the time that were included, as you said in your post, have long since been forgotten

Grievous

Let's try a comic book example.

Stan Lee is famous for creating lots of popular characters like Spiderman and The X-Men and writing some SOLID stories, but people like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, and Neil Gaimen have written better and more important and utterly groundbreaking and original works than Lee ever did or could concieve.

Stan Lee's decent to good Spiderman stories, or Alan Moore's Groundbreaking Watchmen?
Or Gaimen's Sandman?
Or Morrison's Invisibles Or his Meta-fictionary Animal Man run?
Or Jack Kirby's ahead of his time New Gods and Eternals series?

Sometimes experimenting with/in a genre is better than playing it safe.

Does Shakespeare fail students or do students fail Shakespeare?

parker kent

Grievous wrote: »

Let's try a comic book example.

Stan Lee is famous for creating lots of popular characters like Spiderman and The X-Men and writing some SOLID stories, but people like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, and Neil Gaimen have written better and more important and utterly groundbreaking and original works than Lee ever did or could concieve.

Stan Lee's decent to good Spiderman stories, or Alan Moore's Groundbreaking Watchmen?
Or Gaimen's Sandman?
Or Morrison's Invisibles Or his Meta-fictionary Animal Man run?
Or Jack Kirby's ahead of his time New Gods and Eternals series?

Sometimes experimenting with/in a genre is better than playing it safe.

Does Shakespeare fail students or do students fail Shakespeare?

Those examples show that it is often the person that adapts existing material and molds it into their own work that create a lasting legacy. Which is no different to Chaucer, Shakespeare etc. They all worked with existing material but created better versions. Great writers have always adapted existing material or stories.

Being the innovator is not always a sign of greatness. Xerox innovated GUI, but they are not the business with the lasting legacy due to GUI.

Grievous

Zerox and Literature.

Does. Not. Compute.



I made a funny!

parker kent

Grievous wrote: »

Zerox and Literature.

Does. Not. Compute.



I made a funny!

Nah I think you are copying somebody....:pac:

blue_steel

Excellent question, I have often pondered this very issue. It is undeniable that for every one great female author there are ten great male ones. This is also true for great painters, composers and scientists.
My personal opinion is that men are more predisposed to write. While women are academically more gifted than men they are not as creative. Whether we like it or not, the sexes are different. Men are more prone to depression, more likely to commit suicide (or homicide for that matter) and more likely to write great books.

parker kent

blue_steel wrote: »

Excellent question, I have often pondered this very issue. It is undeniable that for every one great female author there are ten great male ones. This is also true for great painters, composers and scientists.
My personal opinion is that men are more predisposed to write. While women are academically more gifted than men they are not as creative. Whether we like it or not, the sexes are different. Men are more prone to depression, more likely to commit suicide (or homicide for that matter) and more likely to write great books.

Society played a major role in why women were not as likely to be a published author in the past. In the present and future, that will not really be an issue. I don't think women are less pre-disposed to write. Nor (as some suggest) are they more likely to write.

It was just more difficult to be a woman and write serious literature. Hence why we don't remember the name Mary Ann Evans and instead remember the pen name George Eliot.

mikhail

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's crap. Complete, utter contemptible rubbish. I'm sick to death of the moronic notion that modern [x] are inferior to the giants of the, e.g., 1930s. You'll hear it in everything from soccer to literature to theoretical physics to furniture, and it's garbage based on nothing more than the facts that (a) the only soccer players/writers/physicists/furniture from the 30s you know of are the best (or hardiest) soccer players/writers/physicists/furniture and (b) nostalgia. I guarantee you that in 2090, some twit will be arguing that no modern writer is the equal of the two writers of the past decade he's ever heard of.

Enkidu

mikhail wrote: »

You'll hear it in everything.... theoretical physics....

I understand your general point, but I think for theoretical physics you may be wrong. Physics did objectively advance more in 1900-1920 and the 1970s, than it did in any other part of this century.

mikhail

Enkidu wrote: »

I understand your general point, but I think for theoretical physics you may be wrong. Physics did objectively advance more in 1900-1920 and the 1970s, than it did in any other part of this century.

Pretty much, though I'd plug for roughly the first half of the century in general (splitting the atom in 1932, development of quantum mechanics (30s & 40s) discovery of DNA in 1953). However, I don't think it was because physicists were smarter than now. It just happened that a number of factors including the state of the art, the available technology, financial support for research and the availability of education and jobs making a greater number of physicists available favoured radical improvements.

I think the discussion of the modern publishing industry above fails to recognise something similar - the popular novel is something like 200 years old. There isn't as much scope for radical innovations in style as there was a century ago. There are more people writing than ever before, so there is indeed a great deal of mediocrity around, and the demands of commercial success do whittle down the available pool of writers of literature as others choose to write airport novels, but the notion that there aren't novelists of the standard of the greats is just wrong.

Enkidu

mikhail wrote: »

...Whole post..

I would agree with you on this. Just wanted to point out that quantum mechanics was really developed in the late 20s and early 30s.

Ulysses Gaze

Ficheall wrote: »

Just finished reading Kate Mosse's "bestseller" 'Labyrinth'.
And it got me to wondering... are there any decent female authors out there?

Lionel Shriver
Annie Proulx
Ayn Rand
Flannery O'Connor
Toni Morrison

Boo Radley

Quite liked two earlier books by Mo Hayder - 'Tokyo' and 'The Treatment' - then I read 'The Ritual' which was an awful story in comparison.

With regard the thriving debate on the death of culture and what not, it's a somewhat redundant argument. Culture is ever evolving and if your measure of culture is based on comparing the past standards of "high" culture to the modern incarnation of culture you're doomed to be disappointed.

A lot of stuff I'm reading here comes across a bit elitist if I'm being honest. Let us not forget all of this is entirely subjective and if you feel you are more informed on the history of literature, and feel you have some insights into language and style others may not, it is hardly definitive support to make claims such as, culture is dieing or there are no great writers anymore. The only thing that won't change is that everything changes, including writing styles and what is culturally relevant.

There may be an argument for books being more rushed to make a buck more quickly but it's nonsense to say that there are no great writers left. If someone wants to tell a story, in an inventive, unique way they will do so, ability permitting. Being published is unlikely to be their main concern.

I'm sure there will be and are works produced that will satisfy the traditionalists and their standards but just because you haven't read or even heard of them doesn't mean this is not the case. There is such a huge amount being published that most of us will never read many an important work (again subjectively important) and it may be a few generations after us that will fully appreciate it. After all a lot of the acclaimed work routinely cited here is of previous generations and may not have been appreciated in their own time. It takes millions of human reading hours to wade through the crap to get to the good stuff so time is a factor here too.

Anyway, my point is, I really don't think the world of writing is in any great peril. Then again, that is my subjective opinion.

Getting back to the OP, you're either an eejit or pretty good at the old devil's advocate.

Feelgood

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Cecilia Ahern.

Amazing depth to her novels.
[/SIZE]

Much like the amazing depth to her Da's pockets :pac:

june77

I remember reading Hemmingway in my pretentious teenage years and thought he was the business. Well, after an ex and 2 kids, and a revisit with ernest, it made me think of the partners (likely with artistic interests of their own) of some male authors and all they put up with and what they may have had to sacrifice to keep our great authors alive/out of jail and trouble/managing through debt/being the only available parent. I still like Ernest and other male authors but they certainly have had the luxury of being able to retreat and write what they have seen while women have to get on with every day life.

I think Anne Enright is brilliant

Eliot Rosewater

june77 wrote: »

I still like Ernest and other male authors but they certainly have had the luxury of being able to retreat and write what they have seen while women have to get on with every day life.

What a strange thing to say! Many authors - Adam Smith, George Orwell, Truman Capote - had a constant income of their own when writing their major works, and weren't relying on their wives, which is what you seem to be saying. Also many writers - like Anthony Burgess and William Golding - were teachers and/or academics and were writing in their spare time.

Women have as much an opportunity these days to retreat and write themselves.

mikhail

june77 wrote: »

I remember reading Hemmingway in my pretentious teenage years and thought he was the business. Well, after an ex and 2 kids, and a revisit with ernest, it made me think of the partners (likely with artistic interests of their own) of some male authors and all they put up with and what they may have had to sacrifice to keep our great authors alive/out of jail and trouble/managing through debt/being the only available parent. I still like Ernest and other male authors but they certainly have had the luxury of being able to retreat and write what they have seen while women have to get on with every day life.

I think Anne Enright is brilliant

Granted, I don't frequent any particularly feminist forum, but this might just be the most casually misandrous post I've ever read on the internet. There's no particular reason to treat authors any different from other professions, and I might as well write some bile about all of the women who have let their husbands earn a living for both of them, their children, the nanny and the maid, and pursued nothing more than their own narssicistic interests.

Acacia

What a bizarre idea for a thread... I think I'll go over to Films and post a thread saying " I've just seen Nicholas Cage in "National Treasure"... and it got me thinking, are there any good male actors out there?"

But to answer the question, yes women can write. Sarah Waters, Tracy Chevalier and Phillipa Gregory to name a few.

MonicaBing

Audrey Niffeneger
Toni Morrison
Jeanne Brewster
Annie Proux
Phillipa Gregory
Louisa May Alcott
Emily Bronte
Alice Sewell
Laura Ingalls Wilder
Alice Sebold
..........To name but a few..!

fisgon

Three come to mind to me..

Margaret Atwood - never wrote a bad book
Zadie Smith - wrote two of the best novels of the last fifteen years, just ignore The Autograph Man
George Eliot - Yes, a woman. Check out Middlemarch, 1200 pages of genius.

clouds

Ficheall wrote: »

Just finished reading Kate Mosse's "bestseller" 'Labyrinth'.
And it got me to wondering... are there any decent female authors out there?

Didn't read the thread because the title was enough. Are you serious???? Or do you think one crappy author is representative of half the writers in the world?


FFS

clouds

blue_steel wrote: »

Excellent question, I have often pondered this very issue. It is undeniable that for every one great female author there are ten great male ones. This is also true for great painters, composers and scientists.
My personal opinion is that men are more predisposed to write. While women are academically more gifted than men they are not as creative. Whether we like it or not, the sexes are different. Men are more prone to depression, more likely to commit suicide (or homicide for that matter) and more likely to write great books.

You are not very well read then. I suggest you start with Virginia Woolfe 'Shakespeare's Sister'

clouds

Ficheall wrote: »

Some people seem to be taking unnecessary umbrage at this.
I don't judge authors based on their gender - I wouldn't avoid a book because it was written by a woman. I'm just saying that books I've read, written by women, often fail to impress. It could be that being male I'm not as 'in tune' with what they're trying to say, or given the greater supply of male authors, one is more likely to find a decent male author than a female one.

Granted, the title may give an opening to someone looking for an argument, but really I was just wondering if anyone could recommend some good female authors.

Wow that would have been an excellent thread title. Aren't there any decent male OP's out there?

common sense brigade

Try reading Jane Eyre by charlotte Bronte

kickarykee

Out of my three favourite books two have been written by women:

The first ist "The Demon's"-Trilogy by Sarah Rees Brennan (she's Irisih )
The books are called
"The Demon's Lexicon" (2009)
"The Demon's Covenant" (2010)
and "The Demon's Surrender" (May 2011)

She's an awesome writer and I love the story. It's emotional but not cheesy at all (which is something I don't like too much...)

The second is "Inkworld" by Cornelia Funke (she's German, living in LA)
The books are
"Inkheart"
"Inkspell"
"Inkdeath"

I've read them in German (original language) and it's one of the most unique and touching stories I've ever read. Simply love it!

So, for me, definitely a yes, there are.

Paddy Samurai

Ficheall wrote: »

Just finished reading Kate Mosse's "bestseller" 'Labyrinth'.
And it got me to wondering... are there any decent female authors out there?

One of my favourite genre's is Historic Fiction.
Normally I would stick to Male authors in this Genre.
A while back I picked up my first book by author Robyn Young.At the moment I am finishing off the last part in her Crusade trilogy.As it turns out I really enjoyed this epic trilogy ,and will make it my business to read more of her books in future.
At the moment she is working on a trilogy about Robert the Bruce, William Wallace etc.

metrovelvet

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What a strange thing to say! Many authors - Adam Smith, George Orwell, Truman Capote - had a constant income of their own when writing their major works, and weren't relying on their wives, which is what you seem to be saying. Also many writers - like Anthony Burgess and William Golding - were teachers and/or academics and were writing in their spare time.

Women have as much an opportunity these days to retreat and write themselves.

Not when they have kids. The day doesnt end at five o'clock for them.

Procasinator

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not when they have kids. The day doesnt end at five o'clock for them.

Unless of course the husband (or any partner, that is) takes over that role, something that is not unfathomable in many of today's societies.

clouds

True enough today.

Pretty unfathomable up to 30 years or so ago in the western world. And even today, in the west, not exactly what you'd call 'the norm'.

Dave!

Damn, wish I'd seen this thread earlier, then I could post the following and get a load of thanks