I found this essay fascinating because I had never considered the idea that writing from a female perspective would be a difficult thing. Firstly I have never read Cormac McCarthy - in fact prior to Substack I'd never come across him... so I have nothing to add about him but I do read a lot of female authors and, strangely ( or perhaps n…
I found this essay fascinating because I had never considered the idea that writing from a female perspective would be a difficult thing. Firstly I have never read Cormac McCarthy - in fact prior to Substack I'd never come across him... so I have nothing to add about him but I do read a lot of female authors and, strangely ( or perhaps not so strangely), this never seems to be an issue for them to write male characters, male leads, male villains, because they write people. That is, they observe real people and use their knowledge to bring those characters to life. Ursula Le Guin, for one, no matter how fantastical her story, the characters are always grounded in a reality that makes sense for the narrative. I so rarely think about gender, it always amazes me when it crops up as something we need to discuss. Characters are made up of so many elements, needs, wants, upbringing, circumstance, age ( only as a framework for understanding/knowledge - never as a device), and maybe somewhere gender comes into it but it's a tiny part of bringing a character to life - there are so many more important things. Aren't there?
I wonder if it's ever worked the other way, where a woman had trouble writing about a man. If we view the issue through oppressive structures, I wouldn't think so. Historically, men saw woman as something less than themselves, believing those structures to be a function of nature and not society. To write a woman well because she's a person requires that writer to see themselves in her, a task too great, it seems. We have less trouble understanding that those artificially placed above use are no different from us.
I would have hoped that such issues were becoming artifacts of a former time, but recent events suggest otherwise. Specific to Cormac McCarthy, though, he was a strange fella, willing to live in abject poverty rather to take on any work than writing--and subjecting his wives to that same poverty as a result.
Hailed in his time as the greatest living author and yet unwilling to talk about writing, saying he could think about no subject more boring to talk about.
Very true - I can't think of anytime I read a book written by a woman and I questioned the representation of men; however, as Men have owned the narrative for so long, maybe any representation of a man feels valid... Women in fiction/TV/ media in general are still fighting for representation as ubiquitous as men - they are still stereotyped negatively, whereas men are still stereotyped positively - there is still a need to fight battles which should have been long dead. It does not need to be reiterated that a woman can do everything a man can, but men cannot do everything a woman can... yet here we are...2025 and the land grab for narrowing mindsets and obscuring truths is in full effect again.
I found this essay fascinating because I had never considered the idea that writing from a female perspective would be a difficult thing. Firstly I have never read Cormac McCarthy - in fact prior to Substack I'd never come across him... so I have nothing to add about him but I do read a lot of female authors and, strangely ( or perhaps not so strangely), this never seems to be an issue for them to write male characters, male leads, male villains, because they write people. That is, they observe real people and use their knowledge to bring those characters to life. Ursula Le Guin, for one, no matter how fantastical her story, the characters are always grounded in a reality that makes sense for the narrative. I so rarely think about gender, it always amazes me when it crops up as something we need to discuss. Characters are made up of so many elements, needs, wants, upbringing, circumstance, age ( only as a framework for understanding/knowledge - never as a device), and maybe somewhere gender comes into it but it's a tiny part of bringing a character to life - there are so many more important things. Aren't there?
I wonder if it's ever worked the other way, where a woman had trouble writing about a man. If we view the issue through oppressive structures, I wouldn't think so. Historically, men saw woman as something less than themselves, believing those structures to be a function of nature and not society. To write a woman well because she's a person requires that writer to see themselves in her, a task too great, it seems. We have less trouble understanding that those artificially placed above use are no different from us.
I would have hoped that such issues were becoming artifacts of a former time, but recent events suggest otherwise. Specific to Cormac McCarthy, though, he was a strange fella, willing to live in abject poverty rather to take on any work than writing--and subjecting his wives to that same poverty as a result.
Hailed in his time as the greatest living author and yet unwilling to talk about writing, saying he could think about no subject more boring to talk about.
Very true - I can't think of anytime I read a book written by a woman and I questioned the representation of men; however, as Men have owned the narrative for so long, maybe any representation of a man feels valid... Women in fiction/TV/ media in general are still fighting for representation as ubiquitous as men - they are still stereotyped negatively, whereas men are still stereotyped positively - there is still a need to fight battles which should have been long dead. It does not need to be reiterated that a woman can do everything a man can, but men cannot do everything a woman can... yet here we are...2025 and the land grab for narrowing mindsets and obscuring truths is in full effect again.