[Caelum's Scrapbook] Use Your Words.

[Caelum]

Alright. Enough is enough. Be you. Be funny. Be silly. Be creative. Be judgemental. Be gross. Be pointless. Be critical. Be inspiring. Be brilliant. Be anything. I don't care. But, please, be kind. If you are incapable of being kind in whatever else you are doing, then maybe what you're doing isn't kind at all. And, if that's the case, don't do it around me. I'm not going to sit there watch it happen.

[Gossamer]

I decided to like your scrapbook. I never like scrapbooks, only threads. It's 'likeworthy'. Now carry on. Oh. Found this. This is up your alley. You need to let it play on through. I'm not sure it will show up. If it doesn't go follow the link.

[Caelum]

we are dropping coins into dead payphones to hear the sound of our voice - american nightmare – Life has been laughing at me lately and for that I am grateful. It has been a difficult year filled with what my mother in law calls “problems you have to put your big girl panties on for”. I have done a lot of work this year and a lot of maturing. There have been plenty of stress outs and days when it seemed all I have ever worked for in my life was going up in smoke or spinning out of control. For once I can honestly say that none of these issues are things I caused for myself. They are life issues. Shit happens issues. The “I did everything right so why is this happening” and “where’s the survival manual to the world” problems. Trust me, I have dealt with my fair share of problems I ultimately brought on myself; but this year, this year, I found out the real definition of “adult” as it pertains to myself. About time, I guess. I’m going to be thirty soon. I don’t usually do this, but I’m in a melancholy mood. Typically the thought of airing anything very personal and potentially negative about myself causes my stomach cramp with distaste. This is not only because I dislike the way people can occasionally react, but because I have a very good life and am luckier than the majority of the world. Being sad, stressed, whiny or other related things, while being human, is still in my opinion unfair to anyone who has a less fortunate life than I. When my “big problems” this year have been at their peak, I have had very little patience for anyone who wanted to complain and be dramatic about minor issues. I constantly had to remind myself that my minor issue may be their major one and vice versa, that the most honest thing a human being can offer is their emotions and it is not my place to ask people to justify them. Emotions should never be judged, be they justifiable, relevant or otherwise. How a person handles their emotions and ultimately if and how they act on their emotions can be weighed, but not, not that they have them at all. The bigger issues in my life have not been resolved, but they have come to a pleasant limbo point. There is no immediate alarm. There is light at the end of this tunnel. It has been a busy but good month. Last night I found out about the unexpected death of a colleague and it hurt, harder and sharper, deeper and longer, than I would have imagined. Her words are in my head, replaying themselves. They’re going to color the next thing I write, whatever it is, I know it like I know my bones. She, too, believed in promises and how they’re meant to be kept and once we created the entire back story of a sci-fi series together. She is the third fellow writer, compatriot, personal, pen wielding hero of mine to die this year, and die too young, guttering out too fast, with a couple thousand more pages left unwritten. I feel old.

[Faroul]

Katie, I know that in posting this, condolences are probably the last thing you wanted. Still, I am truly sorry for the passing of your friend. There is an amazing bond that comes out of sharing part of your creative life with someone, so I know how difficult this must be. But even if life is short, too short, the words she has left, and that you created together, are immortal.

Words fail me, so I'll let these puppies say the rest.

[Caelum]

Thank you, Faroul, and the others of you who took the time to say something nice to me yesterday. It was greatly appreciated. call me ken. When a professor at a liberal arts college that proudly promotes their open-mindedness tells their female writing students that they should have three names to publish under – one for their primary genre, one for materials written outside of that genre, and one male pseudonym – there is something rotten in Denmark. Then we learn that the professor in question is a woman and our eyebrows rise to our hairlines. Or do they? I would like to imagine that this professor advised her students of this with a disclaimer stating her disagreement with the prejudice this advice implies is alive and well in the publishing industry and/or the reading public. This advice, while not direct evidence of discrepancies in the treatment of men and women in the industry, is absolutely indicative of it; and, most likely, the professor was only attempting to inform and so forewarn her female students. Thems the breaks? The women’s literary organization VIDA has found yet again that there is a sizable disparity between the number of men and women writing for major publications, and between the number of men and women being published. I have been involved of late in numerous conversations regarding these discrepancies with both writers and avid readers, the result of which is a series of impromptu interviews. This greenhorn research has failed to answer many of my questions and instead only raised others. This is a problem that belongs primarily to the people, not to the publishers. The publishers are looking to sell what the people will buy. Of course, as a couple undergrad business/marketing classes taught me, demand for a product can be manipulated to a degree by the seller. Born and raised in the South, I was taught that gentlemen hold doors for me, carry my bags and invite me to order before them in restaurants. My brother and I were told this was a form of respect, one for me to not only accept but to expect in polite society. My brother was taught that did he fail to perform these duties, he was not a gentleman. I cannot say I disagree with this. Surely such tasks were being performed by men for women for centuries, long before Women’s Lib. Of course, back then women were often expected to defer to men in intellectual matters and were denied many of what are now considered basic human rights and legal protections. History has cast its shadow over us and where does a modern, free thinking woman know where to draw the line? Know how? The line cannot possibly be drawn before the expectation to promote yourself as a man in order to be published. Can it? I have personally been advised by at least three people in the publishing industry to use the initial of my given name. That is, I was told, unless I intend to write “chick lit” or “young adult”. The worst part is that I have done exactly this. I have accepted this. I have expected this. Yet this, while perhaps not outright prejudice, is certainly not respect. Therefore ought I regret it? Should I change that practice going forward? Would you as a reader be less inclined to buy a science fiction novel by a Katie Doe than you would by a Ken Doe? Would you be more inclined to buy a romance novel or a Young Adult novel by a Katie over a Ken? What about the blessedly androgynous “K”? Studies show that you would be. Publishers believe you are. Is it true? I honestly want to know. A male associate of mine told me that while he possesses no conscious bias in this regard, he refuses to read more Anne Rice after having read one of her books. He enjoys her genre. He appreciates her writing style. He likes her stories. So why does he refuse to read her books? He said it was because, as a heterosexual man, he is distinctly uncomfortable reading intense, sexual content when he knows the author is a woman. That is an answer, an honest answer that I can respect even if I do not completely understand it. I want more answers. I want to know why and I really want to know what can be done about it. I am proud to be a female writer. I don’t know how to let you call me Ken.

[Colombina]

This is a great question. I wondered myself what I would do if I ever published anything. I came up with the "genius" plan of having my pseudo last name be close in spelling to an author who wrote something similar and popular. Maybe those looking for her/him on the shelf would stumble across my adjacent book. And yes, my horrendously long and girly name would be boiled down to H.R. + fake last name. Why would I do this? To be honest, I personally have a hard time when authors endeavor to fully occupy the mind of a person of the opposite gender. It takes away some of the believability for me. Yet we are all human and have similar foibles and desires we can identify with, but the male female divide is a beautiful and true thing. I don't find one gender's outlook superior to another, I think they work in tandem. Granted, there are some overlaps and variance. Neat boxes don't exist. I know I have a traditionally "masculine" outlook on some things and I know a few men with a traditionally "feminine" approach. When the sex of the author is removed, so is the nagging doubt and the story can be taken fully. Eventually I may discover the author's sex and be pleasantly surprised at how masterful a man's interpretation of a female character may be. (TANGENT TIME!) Where things get dicey for me is when one gender's outlook is thought superior. A trend I find upsetting in some modern (a key word) women's movements is a rejection of the feminine. Instead of glorying in what femininity can be they have cast it aside and adopted "masculine" traits to prove equality. "Girly" things become a byword for oppression and vapidness, and masculine habits are forward thinking. To me, this is more offensive than the initial stereotype. I love "girly" stuff. I think our ability to appreciate and be beauty is sublime, and what is more powerful and encouraging than a good mother? Think of the female lover with all her mystique and depth. Plus, smelling good at all times is friggin' magic. On a different note, I love having thing done for me by men, not because I am incapable of doing them, but because I like to imagine good women and the feminine ought to be revered and cherished. On the contrary I think a good man and positive masculinity ought to be respected. On a grander scale, these little social niceties are a display of good breeding and a capacity to be considerate regarding people different from yourself. So that's my 25 cents for your scrap .

[Faroul]

Seconding Bina here: this is a great discussion question. I've been rolling it around in my head for a bit, trying to come up with a coherent answer. Where to start? Actually, with a disclaimer to the general reader. People might read the following and be offended based on presumptions they have made about my real-life gender. If they think I am a man, I may be accused of condescension or "mansplaining," and if they think I am a woman, this will be "femme nazi bitch" territory. (Can you tell I'm really cynical about internet gender discussions?) I say: take my argument as it is. The shape of my body is not relevant to this argument. If you feel it is, go ahead and send me angry PMs, but don't clog up Katie's scraps with it. That said, here we go! Yet this, while perhaps not outright prejudice, is certainly not respect. I think we need to call this situation out for what it is. What you've shown here is that a woman's choice to publish under her real name consigns her work to a "pink ghetto" and erodes the ability of readers to take her work seriously. This in turn results in less women getting published and writing for major publications, allowing one kind of voice (the male voice) to dominate the industry. There is no other name for this: This IS prejudice. This is misogyny. This is a patriarchal system of power recapitulating itself. And it is absolutely unacceptable. Where does the fault lie? Certainly not with female writers. You question your decision to write under a pseudonym or initials, but the burden to be right is not on you. No matter what choice you make, you are living and writing in a system that is culturally and institutionally stacked against women. If you want to game said system, taking every step you can to succeed in a literary career where competition for readership and advances is fierce - including by using a pseudonym - go to it. If you want to stand up and loudly proclaim that you are not ashamed of being a female writer, then do so. Either way, there is a compromise, be it a monetary or moral one. There is no perfect choice. This is likely what the professor in your example knew when she made the pseudonym suggestion to her students. Not everyone is able or privileged enough to stand up to systems of inequality, so she may as well teach them how to at least get by. I do not for an instant condone the cultural patterns and institutions that force women to make this choice daily (not just about their writing careers, but their own identities and performances of gender as well.) On the contrary - I denounce them. But I do think that it will require more than just women's individual actions and choices alone to conquer patriarchy, misogyny, and inequality. Of course individual stands need to happen, but without supporting institutional action, this society won't change in the way we need it to change. We need laws that affirm women's equal rights and full status as human beings. And even if we already have those laws, we need a government, police force, and court system prepared to give them real teeth. We need news media, entertainment, and advertising industries that refuse to rely on sex appeal for sales, that cease to cultivate women's fears for profit, and that adamantly will not spread hateful or misogynistic messages. And I'm also pretty sure that men need to acknowledge their position as privileged actors in society, to stop whining that this privilege is eroded by women's rights, to cease tolerating misogynistic comments from their other male companions, and to start taking the women in their lives seriously. This is why the Anne Rice example from your male interviewee smacks me as the layering of a polite but disingenuous cover story over a truth that is less socially acceptable. (Because even if our culture is misogynistic as all get-out, it's still gauche to be openly so.) Why does this person care if an intensely sexual scene is written by a woman? Is it because he feels it is improper for a woman to be writing like that? Does he feel that a woman cannot understand male sexual feelings? Would he be more comfortable if the scenes in question were written by another man? A man of different ethnicity? A homosexual man? A transgendered individual? Some deeper questions might illuminate the gender ideologies that are informing his opinion. Wild theorizing here: I think it's going to be hard to find genuine answers in your questioning, because people understand that discussions of gender and gender politics tread controversial and treacherous territory. People's first instinct is often to cover up their uglinesses (me included), so I doubt there are many folks who will cop to disliking or being disinterested in women's work, even if that is really the case. Still, I agree it is important. Understanding the issue has to start somewhere. I am totally curious as to what you find. Since you asked what we do as readers: personally, I don't give flying rat peanuts about an author's sex or gender. I have met both men and women who are equally capable (and incapable) of depicting the opposite sex. The text itself speaks more loudly in my mind than the name on the cover. My opinion is surely colored by the fact that I write for characters whose bodily shape and gender identity are different from mine all the damn time. If someone can convincingly write about a starving street rat, a heavens-born healer, a six-armed politico living in a kingdom of sand, a doomed escaped convict (har har), then why couldn't men and women write convincingly about another kind of person they commonly see around them every day? Why is gender somehow the final frontier of relating to or sympathizing with or depicting a character? Unlike Bina, I don't believe the male/female divide is a true or essential thing. Rather, gender is a collection of expectations and behaviors instilled into us by society. It is not natural or inborn, but taught and performed. Each person relates to the expectations society lays onto their biology in different ways - embracing them, rejecting them, forming their own identity. Masculinity shouldn't be limited to male-bodied people, and feminitity shouldn't be limited to female-bodied people. (As if that would even be possible, anyways - many people are born with ambiguous sexual organs that defy easy classification.) Instead, I think people should embrace what they like, and not have to endure labels or bigotry becase society does not equally value the behaviors and presentation they have chosen. That is the sticky problem with femininity - there is nothing inherently lesser about it, but society places less value in it, and worse, makes it into a trap for women. (How much money, time, and sanity is lost worrying over being "beautiful?") To try to escape that trap, people shun femininity further, attempting to seize personal worth by donning the trappings of society's valued gender (masculinity.) This is the cause of the psuedonym problem. Frankly, it shouldn't have to be that way. I look forward to the day when everyone can adopt the identity they want, and publish books using whichever name they want, without fear.

[Caelum]

“As a writer, rejection sometimes feels like someone telling me to shut up.” - Alana Noel Voth Last year a screenwriter, a playwright, an actress and I put together a small organization to promote and celebrate female writers. We only accepted work by female writers because that was the entire point of the blog. One of our bylaws for submissions stated: “We here at -- also love male writers, but please don’t send us stuff by/about them unless they are talking about a lady writer. We are defining ladies as anyone who identifies as female.” Here, here, Faroul. In the Salon.com article “Literature’s Gender Gap”, Laura Miller writes: According to the Guardian, “four out of five men said the last novel they read was by a man, whereas women were almost as likely to have read a book by a male author as a female. When asked what novel by a woman they had read most recently, a majority of men found it hard to recall or could not answer.” When it comes to gender, women do seem to read more omnivorously than men. Publishers can assume that a book written by a man will sell to both men and women, but a book by a woman is a less reliable bet. This is hardly an issue in the world of magazines and publishing alone. Indeed, recent studies have shown similar trends in theater and playwriting as well. In fact, according to the New York State Council on the Arts, a mere 17% of the plays produced on America’s stages are written by women. Why is this? Why does it seem as though the general conception is that a story about a man is universal and a story about a woman is for women? How can we examine and/or change that conception? How can we inspire more readers (and theater-goers, movie-and-tv watchers and article-readers etc.) to pick up something by a woman? I think the below quotation supports things said by both Bina and Faroul regarding the embracing rather than the rejection of traditionally feminine traits. I want to live in a world where little girls are not pinkified, but where little girls who like pink are not punished for it, either. We can certainly talk about the social pressures surrounding gender roles, and the concerns that people have when they see girls and young women who appear to be forced into performances of femininity by the society around them, but let’s stop acting like they have no agency and free will. Let’s stop acting like women who choose to be feminine are somehow colluders, betraying the movement, bamboozled into thinking that they want to be feminine. Let’s stop denying women their own autonomy by telling them that their expressions of femininity are bad and wrong. Antifemininity is misogynist. What you are saying when you engage in this type of rhetoric is that you think things traditionally associated with women are wrong. Which is misogynist. By telling feminine women that they don’t belong in the feminist movement, you are reinforcing the idea that to be feminine and a woman is wrong, that women who want to be taken seriously need to be more masculine, because most people view gender presentation in binary ways. This rewards the ‘one of the boys’ type rhetoric I encounter all over the place from self-avowed feminists who seem to think that bashing on women is a good way to prove how serious they are when it comes to caring about women and bringing men into the feminist movement. - S.E. Smith, “Get your Anti-Femininity out of my Feminism” But, you say, a woman won the Pulitzer Prize in Literature this year! In answer I give you Ursula K. Le Guin, a truly extraordinary female writer who back in 1986 delivered an address to my questions today. If you want to succeed in business, government, law, engineering, science, education, the media, if you want to succeed, you have to be fluent in the language in which “success” is a meaningful word. White man speak with forked tongue; White man speak dichotomy. His language expresses the values of the split world, valuing the positive and devaluing the negative in each redivision: subject/object, self/other, mind/body, dominant/submissive, active/passive, Man/Nature, man/woman, and so on. The father tongue is spoken from above. It goes one way. No answer is expected, or heard. In our Constitution and the works of law, philosophy, social thought, and science, in its everyday uses in the service of justice and clarity, what I call the father tongue is immensely noble and indispensably useful. When it claims a privileged relationship to reality, it becomes dangerous and potentially destructive. It describes with exquisite accuracy the continuing destruction of the planet’s ecosystem by its speakers. This word from its vocabulary, “ecosystem,” is a word unnecessary except in a discourse that excludes its speakers from the ecosystem in a subject/object dichotomy of terminal irresponsibility. The language of the fathers, of Man Ascending, Man the Conqueror, Civilized Man, is not your native tongue. It isn’t anybody’s native tongue. You didn’t even hear the father tongue your first few years, except on the radio or TV, and then you didn’t listen, and neither did your little brother, because it was some old politician with hairs in his nose yammering. And you and your brother had better things to do. You had another kind of power to learn. You were learning your mother tongue. Using the father tongue, I can speak of the mother tongue only, inevitably, to distance it — to exclude it. It is the other, inferior. It is primitive: inaccurate, unclear, coarse, limited, trivial, banal. It’s repetitive, the same over and over, like the work called women’s work; earthbound, housebound. It’s vulgar, the vulgar tongue, common, common speech, colloquial, low, ordinary, plebeian, like the work ordinary people do, the lives common people live. The mother tongue, spoken or written, expects an answer. It is conversation, a word the root of which means “turning together.” The mother tongue is language not as mere communication but as relation, relationship. It connects. It goes two ways, many ways, an exchange, a network. Its power is not in dividing but in binding, not in distancing but in uniting. It is written, but not by scribes and secretaries for posterity: it flies from the mouth on the breath that is our life and is gone, like the outbreath, utterly gone and yet returning, repeated, the breath the same again always, everywhere, and we all know it by heart… It is a language always on the verge of silence and often on the verge of song. It is the language stories are told in. It is the language spoken by all children and most women, and so I call it the mother tongue, for we learn it from our mothers, and speak it to our kids. I’m trying to use it here in public where it isn’t appropriate, not suited to the occasion, but I want to speak it to you because we are women and I can’t say what I want to say about women in the language of capital M Man. If I try to be objective I will say, “This is higher and that is lower,” I’ll make a commencement speech about being successful in the battle of life, I’ll lie to you; and I don’t want to. Now that I allowed the words of wiser people than I to express myself this brain dead morning, I give you this. It made me happy. - katie.

[Caelum]

Post Script: Faroul – Nor do I understand when, in the context of this forum, writers claim to be incapable of creating a PC who is a different gender than they are themselves. How can I myself claim to have more in common with a glittering, horned doctor who has known the face of a god than I would with a man? Trust me, it is not the fact that Caelum is male that will trip me up when I do trip. I have written male and female protagonists. Emperors and thieves, drug dealers, mob bosses, queens of the forgotten and time traveling cartographers trying to puke back spring into a dying world. If you (ambiguous, not "you, Faroul") want to upset me, talk to me about what I know and what I don’t know, what I can and cannot identify with, what I am and am not capable of bringing to complete realization. There is even in the shredded soul of a purple haired, five eyed intelligent roach race straight out of Mr. Card’s future a seed of me. My job as a writer is to find it. Then I tell its story.

[Caelum]

EDIT: Preference is different than a claim of inability. The latter suggests cowardice. Ineptitude only counts when you have honestly tried time and again without success. “Had we the courage to love, we would not so value these acts of war,” and all that. Thank you, Ms. Winterson. (Now I really need to extract myself from my scrap and get some work done.)