I just mentioned Sue Grafton and P. Cornwell to let everyone
know the
kind of female writers I liked in addition to all the male
writers, like
Andrew Vachss and Ed McBain (who is a god in my
opinion).
I sure did not mean to cause a debate on eqality! I love all
authors who
write good books, whether they are M or F or different colors
or
religions..
I will agree that men, in alot of ways will always have a
advantage over
female writers when it comes to hard-boiled novels,
especially when it
comes to male characters. But I have found that they are
pretty bad when
writing about the feelings and actions of their female
characters....
please forgive the newcomer for causing trouble, but it has
been a
lively debate!
Lori
lormo@foto.infi.net
james.doherty@gsa.gov wrote:
>
>
> I don't see how not including women as "hard-boiled"
dismisses them in the
> least. Hard-boiled is not some pinnacle of success to
reach in order to be
> considered a good writer ... it's sub-genre period.
Men and women are not
> alike no matter how much we preach equality ... we
are not only physically
> different, but psychologically different as well ...
it's not a sign of
> inferiority that we are different ... we're just not
the same. There's
> nothing wrong with a subgenre which presents a male
point of view and
> another which presents a feminine one. We really need
to get off this PC
> bullshit and get onto celebrating the differences
instead of trying to
> broaden the definitions to the point of generality at
best. No one was
> created equal and no one ever will be. Thank God ...
what boring world
> that'd be.
>
> RE: Above
>
> The last thing I ever thought anyone would accuse me
of is political
> correctness. Nor do I think that writing a story that
falls under the
> rubric of "hard-boiled" is necessarily an indication
of quality. I like
> Hammett. I don't like Robert Parker. They're both
hard-boiled.
> Similarly, I Grafton. I don't like Paretsky. They're
both hard-boiled.
> Not including them as hard-boiled when that's clearly
what they are, and
> clearly what they're trying to be, is dismissive, at
least in the sense
> that it dismisses them from this list which, as I
understand it, is devoted
> to discussing hard-boiled mysteries. And that's
short-sighted.
>
> Nor is including them within the category somehow
failing to recognize
> their femininity. The fact that a character is tough
and colloquial
> doesn't mean that their individual approach to
investigation won't be
> different from any other tough, colloquial character.
One of the things
> that would naturally contribute to individual
differences would certainly
> be gender. This is no less true for *writers* of
tough, colloquial crime
> fiction. - Jim Doherty
>
>
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.