Regarding Chekhov - if a woman had written about the swans flying to Moscow, would it be seen as a work of genius?
And I can't think of many modern writers I like, apart from say Joel Lane and Gwendoline Riley. One male, one female. But I don't think anyone will think them "great". Then again, I wonder what the criteria is for "being great" - and I think often it's thought up by people who don't know what they're on about.
I've tried Hemingway - For Whom The Bell Tolls. And I couldn't get into it. I've read other novels about the Spanish Civil War, like Orwell's, and that was fine (ok, it wasn't exactly a novel seeing as it was autobiography, but still). Not Hemingway. And yet people go on about how wonderful he is.
See also Dostoeyevsky. Pasternak? I love Dr Zhivago. But not Dostoeyvesky. Can't even spell his name, apparently.
And lest we forget, the same people who hold up (mainly male) literary greats to us also tell us that Dickens is awesome. I don't mind Dickens, but I can't read it - too many convenient coincidences, those STUPID character names (Mr Wopsle. Mr M'Choakenchild. etc.), and the fact that writing episodically for Victorian magazines just doesn't feel write in a novel. All those dun-derrr-derrrr! cliffhangers.
Shakespeare? I'd rather Ben Jonson.
I can safely say that nothing got me excited about English literature until I read Jane Eyre. And it's not just because it's got snogging in it.
And of course I love Wuthering Heights, and it seriously pisses me off when people try to prove that Emily didn't actually write it. No, her brother did. What? Her brother was a drunken pillock! And even women writes want to take her novel away from her - Daphne Du Maurier wrote a book about Branwell and argued that he was the real author of Wuthering Heights, "because a woman can't possibly write like that." And he knew all about passion because he'd supposedly had an affair.... As if passion isn't something that humans feel anyway.
I always try to resist Jane Austen because in my mind she looms like the mother of chicklit. Maybe they should reissue them with a pink Regency slipper on the cover? However... when I was forced to read Nothanger Abbey, I thought, wait, this is actually a really clever pisstake of Gothic fiction. And then I read Sense & Sensibility and it was very good at mocking the idea of people floating about and succumbing to their emotions. I still haven't read Pride & Prejudice though.
You can see the sidelining of women in film and tv too. I really like Two & A Half Men, but would Two & A Half Women be the same in appeal to everyone else? I love Frasier, but would people watch two sisters squabbling and consider it universal? No, it'd be for the girls. And maybe the gays.... It's always as if men are the universal and women are an adjunct. How many straight men watched Sex & The City? (apart from my boyfriend, but he liked Will & Grace....). Why don't I want to watch Samantha Who? Cos it looks "girlie" and annoying, if I'm honest.
Why is the satellite channel Dave called Dave? It was called UKTV or something before, but they rebranded it. They didn't change what they showed, but they named it after a bloke. How did the women feel who watch it? Why is a tv channel so gendered? I happen to enjoy QI and Michael Palin's wanderings - I even sometimes find it amusing to watch Top Gear if they're going to launch a BMW Mini off a ski slope. Does this mean I need a sexchange? But no, the powers that be decided that their average viewer was a bloke, an average bloke, so they called it Dave.
What would the Davina channel be like? Wall-to-wall girlie stuff. Nothing which requires a brain, like QI. Because clever stuff is for men, of course. *rage*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-01-07 04:40 pm (UTC)And I can't think of many modern writers I like, apart from say Joel Lane and Gwendoline Riley. One male, one female. But I don't think anyone will think them "great". Then again, I wonder what the criteria is for "being great" - and I think often it's thought up by people who don't know what they're on about.
I've tried Hemingway - For Whom The Bell Tolls. And I couldn't get into it. I've read other novels about the Spanish Civil War, like Orwell's, and that was fine (ok, it wasn't exactly a novel seeing as it was autobiography, but still). Not Hemingway. And yet people go on about how wonderful he is.
See also Dostoeyevsky. Pasternak? I love Dr Zhivago. But not Dostoeyvesky. Can't even spell his name, apparently.
And lest we forget, the same people who hold up (mainly male) literary greats to us also tell us that Dickens is awesome. I don't mind Dickens, but I can't read it - too many convenient coincidences, those STUPID character names (Mr Wopsle. Mr M'Choakenchild. etc.), and the fact that writing episodically for Victorian magazines just doesn't feel write in a novel. All those dun-derrr-derrrr! cliffhangers.
Shakespeare? I'd rather Ben Jonson.
I can safely say that nothing got me excited about English literature until I read Jane Eyre. And it's not just because it's got snogging in it.
And of course I love Wuthering Heights, and it seriously pisses me off when people try to prove that Emily didn't actually write it. No, her brother did. What? Her brother was a drunken pillock! And even women writes want to take her novel away from her - Daphne Du Maurier wrote a book about Branwell and argued that he was the real author of Wuthering Heights, "because a woman can't possibly write like that." And he knew all about passion because he'd supposedly had an affair.... As if passion isn't something that humans feel anyway.
I always try to resist Jane Austen because in my mind she looms like the mother of chicklit. Maybe they should reissue them with a pink Regency slipper on the cover? However... when I was forced to read Nothanger Abbey, I thought, wait, this is actually a really clever pisstake of Gothic fiction. And then I read Sense & Sensibility and it was very good at mocking the idea of people floating about and succumbing to their emotions. I still haven't read Pride & Prejudice though.
You can see the sidelining of women in film and tv too. I really like Two & A Half Men, but would Two & A Half Women be the same in appeal to everyone else? I love Frasier, but would people watch two sisters squabbling and consider it universal? No, it'd be for the girls. And maybe the gays.... It's always as if men are the universal and women are an adjunct. How many straight men watched Sex & The City? (apart from my boyfriend, but he liked Will & Grace....). Why don't I want to watch Samantha Who? Cos it looks "girlie" and annoying, if I'm honest.
Why is the satellite channel Dave called Dave? It was called UKTV or something before, but they rebranded it. They didn't change what they showed, but they named it after a bloke. How did the women feel who watch it? Why is a tv channel so gendered? I happen to enjoy QI and Michael Palin's wanderings - I even sometimes find it amusing to watch Top Gear if they're going to launch a BMW Mini off a ski slope. Does this mean I need a sexchange? But no, the powers that be decided that their average viewer was a bloke, an average bloke, so they called it Dave.
What would the Davina channel be like? Wall-to-wall girlie stuff. Nothing which requires a brain, like QI. Because clever stuff is for men, of course. *rage*