After his last book was published, several people complained that as a man he had no right to describe a woman's appearance.
He had a good think about it and decided not to describe the appearance of the female protagonist in his latest book "Snow Country". He's leaving what she looks like to his readers' imagination. There are one or two hints but that's it.
Other authors have leapt to Sebastian Faulks' defence, saying it's absurd not to describe a woman's appearance. "The idea that writers can't invent characters beyond their own communities is ridiculous" says Bernardine Evaristo. And Dawn French says "The minute we start to police people's imaginations, we go down a very nasty old route."
The logical conclusion of a man not writing about a woman's appearance is that he shouldn't write about women at all, which would be ludicrous.
Surely the real issue is not whether a man writes about a woman's appearance but how he writes about it. If it's merely a matter-of-fact description of her physical features, what's wrong with that? But if he describes her in a sexualised way (big boobs, tempting lips, shapely bottom etc), that's entirely different and obviously annoying to many female readers.
If a man couldn't write about women, or white people couldn't write about black people, or heterosexuals couldn't write about gay people, and so on, where would it end? Books would be stripped to the bone. You could just about mention Jasper the dog and that would be that. Until someone objected that you couldn't write about dogs because you weren't a dog.
Sebastian Faulks should have stood firm and ignored the idiotic criticisms.
I agree with your last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteRamana: By being so submissive he's encouraging people to make similar criticisms of other books.
Delete"Surely the real issue is not whether a man writes about a woman's appearance but how he writes about it." Agree. If they don't describe the women in the same general manner that they describe the men, then the women will seem less real.
ReplyDeleteColette: Indeed, the women will seem less real. And surely one of the requirements of a novel is to describe the characters in enough detail for you to visualise them.
DeleteColette is right
ReplyDeleteJohn: Yes, she is.
DeleteOh for crying out loud......our entire lives are being censored. I really don't give a hoot how a man describes a woman. It would make more sense to stop showing cleavage in movies/TV, because that objectifies women. We know that's never going to happen, though!
ReplyDeleteBijoux: Agreed, female characters in the movies and TV are much more urgent candidates for a bit of judicious restraint.
DeleteThe Woke (tm) is driving me mad. If you don't like an author don't read him/her. And just for laffs, I always enjoy most male authors writing a love scene. Clueless. Especially when it's up against walls.
ReplyDeleteXO
WWW
www: Male authors' descriptions of sex scenes are often wincingly clumsy and unconvincing. They'd be better advised simply to hint at a sexual scene rather than trying to spell it out.
DeleteIt does get crazy sometimes. Here are some words/terms we're not supposed to use now: blackbox, blackout, brown bag, housekeeping, totem pole, guru, peanut gallery, no can do, grandfathered in. https://itconnect.uw.edu/work/inclusive-language-guide/
ReplyDeleteJean: Good grief, how could we even keep up with all these substitutions? I was intrigued by the note on "peanut gallery". "Peanuts were introduced to America during the slave trade, and thus became associated with Black people." Funny, I'd never been aware of any such association until I read this note!
Deleteoh for heavens sake will this nonsense ever stop. I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.
ReplyDeletePolly: I do think he was a bit spineless in giving in so easily.
DeleteDitto, what is wrong with a man describing a woman's appearance. I know some get a bit hokey describing a woman looking at herself in the mirror and seeing a sexy sight. I don't any woman who does that. I'm sure there might be a teenager who fits that bill. But it is all about storytelling somehow albeit awkward.
ReplyDeleteI'm a very flexible person. I feel concern about all this bending over backward to not offend someone. Then I am a WASP and not the one getting the stereotype. Or is there a stereotype of a WASP? As my dad said, the world was messed up when he was young, messed up as he got old and would surely be messed up for the rest of us.
Ann: I do agree with your father's comment! Some word substitutions are sensible and long overdue, like gay instead of deviant, but others are just bonkers.
DeleteThis is such a silly topic. If a man cannot properly or adequately describe women, he surely will fall short down the line, and just be tossed to the donate pile, sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteJoanne: Indeed. Some male writers do produce some terrible descriptions of women, but that doesn't mean they should never describe women. The baby and the bathwater etc.
DeleteI read your post yesterday, it gave me a headache and I had to lay down in a darkened room to recover. I agree with Dawn French - the imagination cannot be censored, and it is a nasty path to go down.
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: Once you start censoring the imagination (or just perfectly normal opinions like you can't change sex), you're on a very slippery slope.
DeleteSeems like that would be a strange book to read with little or no description of the women. I suppose how he describes any woman in his stories depends on the kind of person he creates. Some unflattering descriptions might well be appropriate in some instances, including the use of words considered objectionable. On the other hand, if his descriptions using such words don't really fit with the kind of person he has created then would be poor writing -- unless it's part of some other character expressing that person's view showing his bias. Writer can write what he wants but if incongruent I'd think he might not get a publisher. If he does get published and I buy his book, then determine he's not a writer I like, I don't have to read his work in the future.
ReplyDeleteJoared: Unfortunately publishers are also submitting to the armchair critics. There are books that have actually been rewritten, or not published at all, which is deeply worrying.
DeletePeople don't have to buy his books if they don't like them. This sort of self centred fussiness about the work of creative writers is absolutely playing in to the hands of those who would censor us for politically tyrannical reasons. I sometimes wonder if it is in fact promoted by them in order to discredit diversity.
ReplyDeleteJenny: I think discrediting diversity has something to do with it. But the irony is that these fanatical activists think their endless attempts at censorship are somehow progressive.
DeleteDescribing a character's appearance is usually essential to writing properly about the character. A person's appearance influences how other people act toward him or her, and this would also be true of a fictional character in any realistic story.
ReplyDeleteThe protests are ridiculous. Any writer should write about whatever he or she wants, in whatever way he or she wants. Anybody who doesn't like it is free to not read it.
Infidel753: Indeed, a person's appearance influences other people's reactions, so of course that appearance should be described.
DeleteWriters must have the right to write whatever they imagine. Even sexual descriptions are ok. Art should be free and express all statements even if the public doesn't agree. The only restriction for me concerns racism. Sorry I do not have the words in English to explain it clearly but I think you understand what I mean.
ReplyDeleteHannah
Hannah: Yes, I understand you. Racism is certainly not acceptable. But if someone dislikes a piece of writing, they're free to stop reading it. As long as art isn't inciting violence, what's the problem?
DeleteOh for goodness sake! I hadn't heard about that.
ReplyDeleteLiz: People come up with the most absurd reasons for condemning someone they don't like.
Delete