Inadvertently May because the month for Woman Power. No, not girl power. It was all about Women. Girls are sweet. Women are powerful. Women have a strength which belie their sweetness. Not all girls become women and some girls take a long time to reach womanhood. All the books I read last month had a woman at the heart of it's book. And with the exception of two (out of the eleven), all the rest were written by women too. And it was a revelation.
When men write about women (or girls) they tend to give them an aura. It can be of the saint or of the whore, or maybe even somewhere in between ( the whore with the heart of gold?!). Rarely are they goofy, the women of the male imagination ( MPDG don't count!). And even rarer are the cases where the goofiness is a part of the strength. It's not that all the women I read about were goofy. But I'm just pointing out an instance of how male and female writers tend to portray female characters. The more female writers I read, I felt there was some subliminal difference. But one I could not place a finger on immediately. Had I read female and male authors indiscriminately as I'm wont to do, I'm sure I would not have even noticed the difference. I would have merely notched it to the particular style or voice of the author.
But skipping from one women to another, author wise, I caught a subtle shift of perception. The women are plainer. Even the attractive ones. They are not built to make your heart ache with want. Not on sight that is. And even more importantly love is not a function that's dependent on their external beauty. Or even on their likability. These women, created by other women, are irritable, have abundant sense of humor even if it is a bit sardonic, unwillingly kind or even willingly unkind. Yet, they still find love and fulfillment. And the love that they find is not dependent on them being likable all the time. Nor is love and fulfillment directly proportional. This is certainly not a revelation in the real world.
They, the female characters, are also sweet, considerate, jealous, motherly, sexy or what ever feminine virtue (or vice) you want to confer on them. The difference, I guess, is that these women are not an embodiment of a single emotion or virtue ( or vice). They get tired and have exceptionally bad hair days and be exceptionally cranky because of the said day or be exceptionally happy and not give a flying f**k for the said day. But the range of emotion that they display, these women written by other women. doesn't make them seem hysterical. Instead it is a mere expression of their feelings at that point of time in the story.
I don't know if I'm making sense. It's not like all the women written by men are hysterical or ideal. I'm not saying that men can't or haven't written about women realistically. But looking back, I feel a majority of the women written by men have, for the lack of a better word, an aura. A particular virtue or vice is subtly enhanced or embodied by the female characters. Male characters can get angry but they are not defined by it (unless we are talking about the Hulk). They also be sad, happy, jealous, manipulative. yet they don't always carry an aura. It is not the norm. The hero or more often the master or guide will have an aura but not every male in the story has one.
And to be clear, I'm definitely not saying female authors are better than their male counterparts. The abundance of shitty writers are more or less equal in their distribution among genders. What I am saying is that it is refreshing to see female characters who are not boxed and colored with a brush of a singular virtue.
When men write about women (or girls) they tend to give them an aura. It can be of the saint or of the whore, or maybe even somewhere in between ( the whore with the heart of gold?!). Rarely are they goofy, the women of the male imagination ( MPDG don't count!). And even rarer are the cases where the goofiness is a part of the strength. It's not that all the women I read about were goofy. But I'm just pointing out an instance of how male and female writers tend to portray female characters. The more female writers I read, I felt there was some subliminal difference. But one I could not place a finger on immediately. Had I read female and male authors indiscriminately as I'm wont to do, I'm sure I would not have even noticed the difference. I would have merely notched it to the particular style or voice of the author.
But skipping from one women to another, author wise, I caught a subtle shift of perception. The women are plainer. Even the attractive ones. They are not built to make your heart ache with want. Not on sight that is. And even more importantly love is not a function that's dependent on their external beauty. Or even on their likability. These women, created by other women, are irritable, have abundant sense of humor even if it is a bit sardonic, unwillingly kind or even willingly unkind. Yet, they still find love and fulfillment. And the love that they find is not dependent on them being likable all the time. Nor is love and fulfillment directly proportional. This is certainly not a revelation in the real world.
Then why does it feel so exceptional in the literary one?
They, the female characters, are also sweet, considerate, jealous, motherly, sexy or what ever feminine virtue (or vice) you want to confer on them. The difference, I guess, is that these women are not an embodiment of a single emotion or virtue ( or vice). They get tired and have exceptionally bad hair days and be exceptionally cranky because of the said day or be exceptionally happy and not give a flying f**k for the said day. But the range of emotion that they display, these women written by other women. doesn't make them seem hysterical. Instead it is a mere expression of their feelings at that point of time in the story.
I don't know if I'm making sense. It's not like all the women written by men are hysterical or ideal. I'm not saying that men can't or haven't written about women realistically. But looking back, I feel a majority of the women written by men have, for the lack of a better word, an aura. A particular virtue or vice is subtly enhanced or embodied by the female characters. Male characters can get angry but they are not defined by it (unless we are talking about the Hulk). They also be sad, happy, jealous, manipulative. yet they don't always carry an aura. It is not the norm. The hero or more often the master or guide will have an aura but not every male in the story has one.
And to be clear, I'm definitely not saying female authors are better than their male counterparts. The abundance of shitty writers are more or less equal in their distribution among genders. What I am saying is that it is refreshing to see female characters who are not boxed and colored with a brush of a singular virtue.
No comments :
Post a Comment