(This written exchange came about as a result of a drawn-out philosophical conversation had by two Boswellians today after they both read a piece in The Daily Beast, titled "Is Masculine Writing Dead?" by novelist Frank Bill, who will be visiting us this Monday, March 18th.)
Stacie
I would say the answer to this question is "Absolutely
not." Then again, I am one of those readers who "can relate to and
enjoy testosterone-fueled prose." I love that sort of prose, regardless of
if it's written by a man or a woman, though I love it most when it's written by
a woman. Doesn't that already blur the lines between what is considered masculine
or feminine writing? Hell, I think the headline is pretty misleading because Bill
doesn't seem to actually be arguing that it is
dead. Also, is it possible to even have this conversation with defining what it
even means to say "masculine" or "feminine" writing? Isn't
that the argument going on all over literature right now?
Paul
Seconded on the hesitation about the title of this piece: it
mostly seems polemical, designed to lure suckers like us onto clicking the
hyper-link (clearly it worked!). And, agreed on the let's-define-our-terms
point, too. At some points throughout this piece it seems like Bill is actually
arguing not for a resurgence, or a greater attentiveness, to a kind of
literature, but for a return to a way of life or to widely shared traditional
cultural gender roles. Maybe that's the question that we should get clear on first:
what exactly is Bill arguing for?
Stacie
I’m pretty sure he didn’t come up with the title, or the
brief summary underneath. The Daily Beast has more to gain by seeming
polemical, than the author does. It seems he’s more into defining what HE sees
as his own definition of “masculinity,” with regard to how his personal
experiences inspire his writing. After all, the women whose work he reads and
admires is a group of writers who offer sparse prose, who keep overt
expressions of emotion to a bare minimum and don’t shy away from violence: “Bonnie
Jo [Campbell], and Dorothy Allison, Flannery O’Connor, and Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings.”
He gives them the same qualification of identity as he gives the male writers who
pen that sort of prose and story, saying they “come from and know struggle,
understand the land they were raised upon, can wield an edge or a gun…”
Paul
It actually seems like his argument has very little to do
with literature at all. He says, "when walking the isles of a bookstore,
those are the characteristics that interest me most, writers who shed light on
what masculinity means, what it is to be tough, to be rugged, to be able to
take care of your damn self." And bemoans the fact that, "a large
number of men have lost their ruggedness. Maybe they never had it. I believe to
be a man is to be tough mentally and physically. To have a small set of skills
to survive from day to day when needed. Like lifting weights or boxing in a
dust and spider-web-infested concrete shed with a tin roof." Really, Frank
Bill? "Being a man" means lifting heavy boxes? This is the sort of
thing that is going to drive people outside of his target audience absolutely
bonkers. Normative claims about "what it is to be a man," and then
the caricature of those techno-gadget, McDonald's eating suburban pansies --
we're all pretty tired of those sorts of gender-role rants.
Stacie
Is it fair to ask writers to only portray gender as fluid
and not concrete in any sort of culturally-broad, understood terms? I mean, you
assert that by writing such views, he’s going to “drive people outside of his
target audience absolutely bonkers.” Since when do (or should?) writers care
about people outside their target audience? What’s wrong with writing
meth-fueled, adrenaline-pumping narratives of desperate, violent men and women
and their lives? Don’t they deserve a voice, too?
Paul
I think there's a subtler point, though, to be drawn out of
Bill's essay. There's a toughness that's a part of some people's perspective --
let's not make the objectionable assumption that this is "manliness"
or even "masculinity" just yet -- and this is something that seems to
be of great value to illustrate in fiction.
Stacie
Definitely. It can be argued, based on recent neuroscience,
that there is such a thing as “masculine” and “feminine” brains—meaning people
are wired to perceive, feel, and interact with the world in ways that are
inherently masculine or feminine. The twist here is that this is a sliding
scale and that both genders find themselves along that scale in differing ways
that can differ even depending on whether we’re talking spatial skills,
language, artistic aptitude, empathy, logic, etc. Writers have the opportunity to
explore that scale, whether it’s Jennifer Weiner or Emily Giffin writing
casual, yet believable dialogue, about women in romantic entanglements in
contemporary life while caring about fashion brands; or Ben Percy or Cormac
McCarthy writing the sparest prose possible about men hunting, fighting,
surviving, and coming-of-age. Then you have Peter Geye, who writes these very
masculine stories featuring very manly men with what could be considered
feminine prose—lots of carefully wrought, adjective-laden detail and
consideration of emotional connection and depth. Or take Alyson Hagy, Jaimy Gordon or Tom
Franklin, who both span a wide range of masculine and feminine stories and
writing styles.
Paul
Reading The Road I
was dumbstruck by the depth of character, the strength and resilience, the
sheer toughness of the Man. On the other hand, I'm not sure that any of these
properties had to do with the Man's..."manliness."
Stacie
Is “manliness” the same as “masculinity”? Can I be “feminine”—let’s
say enjoy makeup and frilly dresses and heels—but also be “masculine” in my
ability to navigate, or swing an ax or fire a gun in order to protect or feed
my babies?
Paul
Sure, it may be easy to group the set of properties --
ability to survive, willingness to protect, loyalty to one's offspring -- under
a single term. But why "masculinity?"
Stacie
Because it quantifies a particular set of beliefs and
actions that are quickly and easily recognizable and contextualized for the
general public. Both men and women cultivate an “ability to survive, a
willingness to protect, loyalty to one’s offspring.” Perhaps it’s in the
cultural ways in which they do those things that divides “masculine” from “feminine.”
Paul
My point, then, is just that Bill's essay seems to apply
more to fiction that exemplifies a particular set of properties or virtues --
things that we tend to see as valuable in themselves -- and, if we think of it
in this way, I'm all for his conclusion: let's not forget this aspect of the
human experience. Let's even celebrate literature that illustrates it and
illustrates it well! But why rely on those tired gender distinctions, or try to
make the point more about traditional gender roles? Drop all that, and I'm in
whole-hearted agreement with Frank Bill. I guess you could say, I appreciate
this essay in spirit, if not in letter.
Stacie
You know, the work of
VIDA:Women in Literary Arts is
entirely focused on all sorts of tangents related to this issue. They want to
make sure there is no distinction between male and female writers. The problem,
inherently, is that there is a distinction. The fight in literary fiction right
now, then, is to not only understand that women can write “masculine” books and
men can write “feminine” books, but that we need more representation of women
who write and review any books at all. One only needs to look at the results of
“The Count” to see that the conversation needs to continue. Maybe our solution
today, to this particular argument, is to make a display of “masculine”
fiction, but with only women writers.
If you're a frequent visitor of our store or our blog, you're probably familiar with our little St.George's Day (April 23rd) competition, I'm also going to assume that you've read Hannah and Paul's pleas for purchase of their books. Hannah gave you ten reasons for why you should be reading The Illumination, and Paul one upped her by listing eleven reasons why you should read Cormac McCarthy's Child of God.
#322,411. The book is humorous. This may be a bit of a shock, but Sagan was actually a funny guy. He was frequently a guest on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, and Carson's parody of Sagan is the origin of the book's title.
#1,000,000,000. Science is sexy, but science by a turtle-necked genius is even sexier. Show your support for eloquent science and turtle necks with the purchase of this book.
