Writing a Woman
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
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.