Writing Male Main Characters Versus Female Main Characters

[redbrunja]

To get my bias clear: what I'm about to say is based mainly on anecdotal experience with fellow female writers both in fandom and without.

Off the top of my head, I can think of no one I know who professes to write men and women with equal ease. Some have an easier time with women because they are women, so it's easier to slip into that headspace, some have an easier time writing men precisely because they aren't men, and feel like they have a freedom that they don't when writing women (and I'm sure there are numerous other reasons for why writing one gender or the other is easier or harder).

That said.

I don't think there is anything inherently easier or harder about writing a man versus a woman, but I do think exclusively writing one or the other, at all times, is a sign of weakness in a writer. (You can certainly choose that all your stories have a protagonist of one gender or the other but I consider knowing how to write both* in the same category as knowing how to write both present and past tense.)

The most common reasons for NOT writing the opposite gender are some of the same ones used for not writing characters of different ethnicities than oneself and hold about as much water. (tl;dr: PEOPLE. MORE SIMILAR THAN THEY ARE DIFFERENT.)

Where it gets tricky is with historical fiction. We have sexism in our current culture and in a lot of times in the past, we had a fuckton more. Depending on how close an author is hewing to historical fact, most male characters would have a lot of sexist ideas about women and a lot of women were severally limited in what they could believably be doing and the amount of agency they had.

The modern sensibilities/historical accuracy balancing act strikes me as way harder than just writing from a man's pov.

But not impossible.


Just look at historical precedent: there have been badass ladies (and I'm going to assume, men who respected them - or am I being too optimistic?) throughout recorded history.


*I know that there are more than two options for gender but in the interests of not tripping over my words, I'm going to pretend for this post.

Comments

[hungrytiger11.livejournal.com]

(tl;dr: PEOPLE. MORE SIMILAR THAN THEY ARE DIFFERENT.)


Exactly. After reading your post, I actually went back and checked (because, my memory is like a blackhole this evening, apperently) how many fics I wrote with POV as one gender versus the other. Not quite half- and half, and a fair portion I switched within the story too. Its just who's head- due to the story I want to tell- makes the most sense or the character I feel I understand better, sometimes. Both seem equally easy (or rather hard) to write, but now makes me wonder if I am putting enough though into how a person's gender would effect their POV in stories....

You do hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves in reading though- that balance between historical accuracy and women/modern views. I HATE it when it is a woman with 21st century sensiblities in a histoical setting.

Depending on how close an author is hewing to historical fact, most male characters would have a lot of sexist ideas about women and a lot of women were severally limited in what they could believably be doing and the amount of agency they had. This is true, but at the same time its only half the story. I think there are women from every age and walk of life that defied convention, in some way, and led lives that are admirable to us now. But it is also unfair if authors (well, or readers too I suppose...) ignore the fact that every society has social constructs, ideas or forms, or what it means to be a woman or a man, deeply ingrained things. A person might break these constructs in some ways, but all ways? No. And it is unnerving and rings untrue when a character in a historical novels ignores all social constructs of the setting of the story, and instead is a modern personage. Its less creative too- after all, our culture shaped us as surely as other cultures shaped people of the past. We may have valued different things and isn't part of the interest in looking at what could or couldn't remain the same?

Interesting and though provoking post!

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

I think there are women from every age and walk of life that defied convention, in some way, and led lives that are admirable to us now. But it is also unfair if authors (well, or readers too I suppose...) ignore the fact that every society has social constructs, ideas or forms, or what it means to be a woman or a man, deeply ingrained things.

Well said.

[qualapec.livejournal.com]

I disagree, actually. I feel as though personages, no matter how modern they may seem, make historical fiction more accessible for me. While that character's existence may be incredibly unlikely, it's as possible as any other event in the novel is. I don't think good historical fiction is always slave to the time period.

I think it does depend on what kind of story you want to write. I just disagree with the idea that "historical fiction" must be exactly like what we perceive that culture was. Historical fiction comes in all shapes and sizes, and to say that it is impossible for a modern mind in older times puts too many constraints on storytelling, IMHO, and that perspective is also wholly unrealistic to me.

Additionally, I'd like to say that it's impossible to try and recreate every single trait or social norm of any given time period. I think that people are admirable for trying, but I don't see the harm in smudging already fuzzy details in order to stay true to your story and your characters.

[hungrytiger11.livejournal.com]

How interesting that, to me, it sounds as if what aids your suspension of disbelief is the exact opposite of what would aid mine. This is why I love fandom, to see how different readers interpret the same things that I read and seeing what we all bring to the piece.

Certainly, the characters need to be people the readers relate to. Otherwise, the story is going to be a pain to read- and likely a pain to write. Also, as you point out, a line that needs to be drawn to make sure the story is being served, first and foremost. And that's why no historical fiction will ever be 100% fact (that is what nonfiction is for). Its just for me, the more truthful the story is to the characters and its setting, the better it is. After all, why set it in that setting or with those characters if they are not leading the story? I find it impossible that a person would be entirely untouched by their own culture, as would be the case with someone in a historical setting who acts as a person from our time would be. The character might have some of the desires and/or traits we value (for example maybe, a women in the twelfth century who's an intellectual and wants to go on a crusade, versus a woman in the same time period who describes herself as a career woman ) but all of them and none of their own time? Its not so much demanding that historical fiction exactly portray that time period (though, I do prefer it to be more, rather than less accurate, I admit) because, without having lived then, that's unfair to expect. But to me, I like to read to find what is universal between the characters and myself, but also to expierence a world-view and life I could never live. Part of reading that interests me most is how by expeirncing things second hand, things that we (thankfully) never have to or even can really live through.



Now you've sparks a desire to reread Lies My Teacher Told Me which has some really interesting things to say about how different soceities had different values (well, it also goes on to talk about how this is then treated by public educations, which gets us into a whole different realm, but yeah.) Sorry this is such a tl;dr comment....