Writing a Woman

A warm welcome for Manly Monday Man J.F. Englert, who is is currently “researching” a fourth Randolph* book in Australia and, befitting this Manly Monday, staying right across the harbor from a town actually named Manly.  Even though the town features perilous surf conditions, sharks, blue bottles and a spider the size of a dime that will kill you in fifteen minutes, no Australian he has met seems to have ever connected the name of the town with idea of manliness.  What this says about Australian ideas of manliness (and womanliness) he hasn’t the foggiest.

 

 

Writing a Woman 

by J.F. Englert

 

When Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson), the misanthropic writer from As Good As It Gets, is asked by a female fan how he writes his women characters so well, he replies:  “I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.”

 

The Melvin Udall approach has one obvious problem: Carol Connelly (Helen Hunt).  The waitress he falls in love with is the most reasonable and accountable character in the film.  Carol is clearly not a character written by Melvin Udall.

 

But Udall is right in what the quote suggests about the process of a man writing a woman.  Writing is artificial.  It’s not some kind of exercise in “being real.”  When something seems written from the heart, my bet is that it isn’t.  Art is a lie that tells the truth.  Even when you don’t detect them, there are tactics, artifices and devices at work. 

 

So how does a man write a woman?  Before the tricks, there must be research.            

 

First stop, Jane Austen for the basics.  Second stop, Virginia Woolf to re-enforce the first stop and deliver superb internal female monologues not found anywhere else. 

 

Take Woolf’s To The Lighthouse.  A close reading should make any sane, writing male immediately scale down his expectations for his own female characters.  Simply put, if all that Virginia Woolf has going on in Mrs. Ramsay’s head is actually going on then we are doomed.  For Ramsay’s every fifty thoughts, the average male has, perhaps (and this is being generous) one.

 

I’m not just playing on the old battle-of-the-sexes stereotypes, because it isn’t the quantity of thought that intimidates, it’s the quality.  Mrs. Ramsay is thinking about things that I and, I suspect, most males would never think of, no matter how much time we had to try to think them up, no matter what cheat sheet we had been slipped.  Mrs. Ramsay notices the subtlest tremors in the life of her family, she makes brilliant course adjustments and acute assessments of the people around her, she comprehends so much of what is lost on her husband who tramps like a rhino through everyone’s lives fuming about his career.

 

Woolf reminds me that the best I can do is make clumsy guesses like one of those navy ships dropping depth charges, hoping that every once in a while a submarine might pop to the surface.   While this is true of writing about anyone who isn’t me, it is particularly true of penning women.  This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.  If we didn’t try all we would have left was memoir (we have too many of those already) and as Kathryn Graham, the critic, wrote: “Women do not always have to write about women…Indeed, something good and new might happen if they did not.”

 

And that’s exactly what I hope will result from all my bumbling:  Something good and new.  When writing women, I draw on what I’ve collected of female speech, habit, inclination, and reaction.  I observe and reflect.  Like David Attenborough in the wilds of Borneo, I try to stay out of the way lest I am stampeded or eaten.  I especially note those things that I would never think of myself, ways of being and doing that are genuinely alien to me as a male.  While sometimes those things involve questions of matching colors, more often, I’m sad to report, they have to do with being thoughtful of others’ feelings.  As a result, Zest Kilpatrick, the rather hard-edged female reporter in Randolph’s books, frequently tempers her edge because she is either thinking about others’ feelings or thinks she should be seen that way.

 

But the importance of tricks becomes apparent when you get to dialogue.

 

Building authentic dialogue is like playing a game of chess.  Better, it is like playing a game of chess in a Manhattan Starbucks during which a drunk, former child chess prodigy decides to teach you en passant and after things go well for a while, he knocks the board across the room because he suddenly believes it is being overrun by space monkeys.  There are rules that govern what your characters can and can’t say to one another but from time to time the board must be overturned.  You and your reader must be surprised. 

 

Before you have the surprise, you have to have the basics.  One fundamental approach is what we can label the call-and-response method of dialogue writing.  The first character says something; the second character replies, either using part of the material the first character employed or staying on point. This creates the agreeable illusion that two real beings are actually interacting on the page.  Here’s an example.  Man:  “Isn’t it just like a woman to notice that the milk hasn’t been put back into the refrigerator?”; Woman: “Isn’t it just like a man not to put the milk back into the refrigerator?”  (Note how this works just as well when the order is reversed).  The problem with this method is that it can become like training wheels for the writer, an effective, but addictive, way of getting the characters to speak that gets in the way of further development. 

 

Luckily, even the surprises can be helped along by a tactic. Let’s call it the non-sequitur method or, alternatively, the you-and-I-really-do-inhabit-different-planets-and-this-proves-it method.  Man:  “If we keep driving at this speed and don’t need to stop —we don’t need to stop, do we?— we’ll be in the city in two and a half hours max.”  Woman: “Do you think Gilbert is lonely?” 

 

These surprises, even if they’re built upon tricks, lead to other surprises, more genuine and telling about your characters, male or female.  Ultimately, though, writing a woman isn’t about writing a woman at all.  It is about writing a human being.  It is about writing the things we share and being surprised, and sometimes delighted, by the things we don’t.

 

In this, I’m backed up by a man who wrote one woman very, very well.  When asked about his “scandalous” character Madame Bovary, Gustave Flaubert said: “Madame Bovary c’est moi.” (Madame Bovary is me).

*A Dog At Sea, J.F. Englert’s third book featuring Randolph, a highly intelligent Labrador retriever turned sometime detective, has just been released.  A screenplay of the first book, A Dog About Town, is nearing completion.  Randolph blogs about food and other important issues atwww.adogabouttown.com. 

Comments

[Harley]

Any man who is man enough to read Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf is good enough for me. And your dog is to die for. Welcome, JF!

[William Simon]

Randolph Rules! Welcome, J.F., to the circus that never ends...:)

[nancy martin]

I loved A DOG ABOUT TOWN. Delightful! And the dog was very insightful, full of surprises and . . . very human. Thanks for being our guest, JF!

[William Simon]

Just a second, Harley. You mean there are men who DON'T read Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf? Sheesh, what's next? You going to tell me men don't read Shakespeare? Shelley? Byron? Spenser? (The poet, not the PI).

Wow....

[Rod Pennington]

Bravo! Having recently made this journey myself I would agree on all points. My cat, Mr. Darcy, also agrees, particularly on the Jane Austen part. For a guy who wants to make the jump to writing from a female prospective I would add a few names to the “Must Read” list.

Camille Paglia. Her insight on feminism and culture is amazing. Her monthly column in Salon is some of the best writing around. If more women – and men -- would read “Sexual Personae” the world would be a better place.

Maureen Dowd. She redefines the word “Bitchy” in her “New York Times” columns. She uses words like a scalpel and takes no prisoner.

Hang around with interesting women. From my experience, the ones who talk the softest and stare at you the hardest usually have the most to say which is worth listening to.

Read popular female fiction. This list would include all of the TLC Tarts. Enough said.

[Terry Odell]

Thanks for sharing, because I've read too many books where the XY author has created XY female characters.

Being of the XX variety, I strive to make my XY's seem real, but there's IS a basic difference in hard-wiring. I usually run my XY scenes by the hubster, who shrugs and says, "Looks OK. What would I know?" (Except he did point out that when I had my skirt-clad female character sit on the couch and tuck her legs under her, that the guy would have peeked. And that I had to give my hero a bigger truck.)

Then again, in romance, with a target audience of XX's, the readers want the guys to be thinking the way they want them to be thinking.

[Karen in Ohio]

Ver-r-r-ry interesting. Excellent blog, JFE. I like the humility! ;-)

[William Simon]

Update: Got an email from Kathy. They have no phones, no Internet, operating on cell phones, but she asked me to post an update and let everyone know everyone's okay otherwise!

[Karen in Ohio]

Thanks, William. I was wondering how they were faring.

[Harley]

I thought it had been awfully quiet around here. Kathy, we miss you.

[Rod Pennington]

A bit off subject but too delicious to ignore...

"He Messed With the Wrong Flight Attendant"

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/He-Messed-With-the-Wrong-Flight-Attendant--83757722.html

You GO Girl!

Maybe she will get a bit part in William's next screenplay.

[Hank Phillippi Ryan]

I know I saw it somewnere..has anyone see that parody of an "advice to the lovelorn" column that's written by a man..and where the answer to a long involved love-question has to do with fixing a car?

Post it if you can find it..it's right to the point!

And what a wonderfully thought-provoking blog topic--how about the difference in: Jonathan says: Can you get the green bowl out of the top left cabinet? And I say: Can you get the green one out of the place?

[Hank Phillippi Ryan]

And again, William..thank you for the hilarious screenplay play. You're amazing..and I have a new image to uphold! (or, hold up.)

[xena]

Soooo....what does the J.F. stand for?
Welcome to our little corner of the world! Loved your or Randolf's blog today.
I tend to think all females have basically the same insides (well except for maybe Chastity/Chaz) so this really got me to thinking.
I also tend to be at least a paragraph ahead of people's conversations and usually actually respond to a question with a totally off the wall different subject.
Last night Super Bowl sample conversation:
"And now for the coin toss."
"Is that a crotch shot or what? Who's that guy in the gold spandex? What a package! Pass the kielbasa."
I also have a question for Randolf. Do dogs actually recognize what kind of dog is barking when they bark back like in 101 Dalmatians? Even the horse knew who it was.
Just asking.
Rod dearest, I do stare hard if nothing else.

[Rod Pennington]

Xena: Based on your:

"Is that a crotch shot or what? Who's that guy in the gold spandex? What a package! Pass the kielbasa."

I have a pretty good idea what you are staring at.

[storyteller Mary]

Lorin Gorman rocks!!

[Marie]

Thanks for your great blog today.
To me author Tennessee Williams successfully captured various stages of a women's life. "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" encompassed cloying women and long-suffering women in a rich way.
I watched "Romance Genre" on OVTV
and was struck by the description of Woody Allen who wrote the screenplay for "Annie Hall". He blurred the man and woman's personalities by portraying them as very neurotic individuals who bounced off each other perfectly. It was the springboard for "When Harry Met Sally" and other neurotic stories.
Novels today usually paint women as career driven, egg-counting individuals who override even the most driven males.
Historical novelist Diana Gabaldon's novel "The Outlander" to me personifies a perfect blend of a woman who knows how to wield power over a man and a man who learns the ways of a woman as well as being powerful in his own right.
The battle of the sexes may be subtle or overt but it surely makes reading extremely interesting.

[Kerry]

Great blog - thanks, and welcome! I'm fascinated by all the processes writers use to write, and have always been particularly impressed with writers who can write a version of the opposite sex that isn't just everyman's or everywoman's fantasy. Even in my romances, I want real people, not mannequins. Sounds like I need to check out Randolph!

The Lorin Gorman story was great. I noticed that she took the initiative to get special training on dealing with closed spaces. Smart woman! After 9/11, I saw way too many bogus "self defense for airplane" programs involving stuff that would never work in an airplane aisle. Hats off to her!

[xena]

Well you know Rod...the bigger they are the harder they fall.
Back to the Lab. Rodney I forgot to say what a wonderful picture of you and J.F.! AND how cute the book covers are!!!!!

[Elaine Viets]

Welcome, JT. I'm a huge Randolph fan (also a tall one).
Wish more bestselling male author were interested in trying to write believable women. I've seen too many "guys in skirts."

[Randolph]

Thank you all for the warm welcome!

To respond specifically to Xena with "dog knowledge" (or rather risky dog speculation based on my slipshod research):
"I also have a question for Randolf. Do dogs actually recognize what kind of dog is barking when they bark back like in 101 Dalmatians? Even the horse knew who it was."

In Randolph's universe they don't communicate much by barking (at least not so far). Randolph prefers to use his nose to verify identity (though this has limited value at long distance). Actually, barking in any big city is a hazard for a dog b/c the neighbors might complain and this could result in the dreaded de-barking operation (the snipping of the vocal cords), and Randolph doesn't want to go under the scalpel even if he doesn't bark much. Which reminds me... Yes, Rod,thanks for the reading suggestions, I wouldn't want to be the target of Maureen Dowd's scalpel.

[Laura (in PA)]

Great to see you here again. Loved the first two books, especially when Randolph was trying to figure out how to communicate something to his occasionally clueless human friend, even if it meant getting himself into trouble (like the Alpha Bits - priceless!)

[Laraine]

JF, if I only had you at hand to read the male dialogue in my screenplays, which is at first pass always much more flowery and thorough than would be the case in real life.
Randolph looks famous. Thanks for posting today!

[Randolph]

Laraine:
It is interesting that you bring this up...I was actually thinking of throwing in some more examples of male dialogue by way of contrast. It might even be a bigger challenge than male-female dialogue. One sure-fire approach (albeit one that could lead to cliche if not kept in check) would be to replace the flowery with pauses, gaps and incomplete, enigmatic statements that demand explanation for which no explanation will ever come. That said, not all males are reticent and some are downright flowery.
Thanks, I think Randolph thinks he looks famous too, but in NYC he is just another dog.
JF

[Electronic Cigarette]

great quote “I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.”

[buy viagra]

Hi, I am of those who believes that women are like a rose, which we must watch and give them all the care they deserve to triples in the best condition, so they'll always be beautiful, thanks for sharing post

[viagra online]

You can't put an animal raised in captivity, in it's alleged natural habitat. I bet so much money this chick wouldn't last in the wild for more than 5 days.

If she didn't take herself so seriously, this could be a funny piece of performance, but instead it's kind of embarrassing.