[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: momma


--- "J. Marie Hall" <fionaeval at yahoo_com> wrote:

> i jammered on about secondhand bildungsroman stuff
> with regard to women writers and peter plunged deep
> into the ocean :)  so i'll try this one again...
> 
> see, when a man writes a definitive work, it's after
> he's discovered himself as an individual (at least
> that he is one).  he's discovering the world in his
> work and then a lot more of himself.  women, on the
> other hand, are just getting to the part about
> separating themselves to be an individual.  they are
> stuck back discovering _themselves_ (and not the
> great
> beyond) in their coming of age novels.  it's quite a
> different read.

women can't see to write process-flow novels as
effectively as men (gloria naylor is the big exception
that comes to my mind)?  female novelists are less
likely to write in circularity, more toward linearity?
 the text is itself the identity for male novelists,
while character/identity/identification is more
primary for female novelists?  male plot structures
are reflexive by virtue that they circulate outward
across narrative time first rather than "simply"
reflect?

i mean those in the most very general terms as what
i've found (and i've read far more male novelists than
female--particularly Victorian Age onward), but i
don't want to misinterpret what you might be getting
at.  female novelists, to me, tend not to fall over
themselves "engaging the reader," which can be a very
good thing a lot of the time, although i love a good
postmodern read too.  ( long live pynchon!). 

i mean i know you're saying "definitive work," but all
good reads are definitive in their own regard, no? :)

eric   

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: