Friday, March 15, 2013

At the Crossroads of Gender and Literature: a bookseller conversation



(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.

3 comments:

  1. What fun! I love that Frank Bill went out on a limb so that I get to hear smart folks like you talking about literature!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I did come up with the title, actually three titles. But this is the one that was chosen. And it refers to ME and how I feel. I think Stacie gets what I'm saying and Paul gets some of it. The essay I wrote was about ME and what influences ME and MY writing, it comes from a real place and real people and how my roots, (the men and women from MY family tree), define/defined and influenced ME. And my masculinity isn't/wasn't defined by men only, my mother and grandmothers were/are something to behold, without them the men wouldn't have been what they were. But the essay is also about what I look for in fiction and what I can relate to. The essay if my PERSONAL view of where I'M from and that view would be completely different had another writer written it from another region but with that said, I'm glad I wrote it. Glad it offered a gut check for some, pissed some people off, and in some cases, not on this blog but on other sites, made guys and gals talk about where they were from and what defined them as people. I'm glad it created conversations and debate between men and women and made people think regardless of whether they get me, my writing or where I'm from because that's what writing should do, make people think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forget to re-check for comments here as the notifications don't come to the post's author, unfortunately. But, I think it's wonderful that we have the opportunity to get responses from the authors, themselves and don't want that to go wasted.

      Paul and I had hours of discussion on this topic, both on personal levels and literary, philosophical levels that extend to e-mail exchanges still, even though Paul has left us for Notre Dame to further study philosophy and religion. It would have been great to document it all in a blog post. Our colleagues would stumble on us discussing what "feminine" vs "masculine" really means and how does one definite it on a personal level if it means something else on a larger, more societally-accepted level, and they would look at us, say something along the lines of, "What language are you speaking?" and then laugh and walk away. That's just how involved and circuitous these discussions between us were. It was exhilarating! We can't thank you enough for that. :)

      Of course, like you, the one thing Paul and I both love--more than hashing out nuances of language and archetype and belief--is putting books in other people's hands that make them think, and question, and reexamine everything, or experience the life and vision of a person unlike him/her.

      The best part about your essay and this piece was that a writer I know and admire wrote me a note to say how this post fired him up to get his next novel finished. So, he has you to thank for that. ;)

      P.S. I've said it since that lovely NYT piece about the hunting legend in your family and I'll keep saying it: I would love to read more nonfiction work of yours, Frank.

      Delete