So, this was my question, and I was really happy with the answers I got! I wonder if one of the writers realized I was actually referring to an answer they had written. I'm glad that person happened to answer.
Just wondering if any of you had opinions on this. Does it make a difference to you if a protagonist is male or female? (Let's leave the "sex v. gender" argument out of this. ) I was especially glad that Concealocanth mentioned Anna Karenina since I recently read it and thought a lot about how the title character was represented (and other female characters, of course). I don't necessarily agree with Concealocanth's opinion on how Tolstoy did, though I am always impressed with books from that era that have even slightly complex female characters. Good job, 19th century authors, that's why I like you.
Fourteen of the last thirty books I read were written by women, which surprised me. (Eight of those were by two mystery authors, though.) The best female author I've read lately is Jane Gardam: her women and men ring true, are complex, and she writes a wide range of ages. Also, the physical Europa editions themselves are beautiful.
The three most recent books I've read were all by male authors from a male perspective, and I could sympathize a lot more with the male in all three than the flat, aggravating, materialistic, shallow females. They are Iran (and the android girl) in DADoES? by Philip Dick, Gloria Gilbert in The Beautiful and Damned by Fitzgerald, and Eunice Park in SSTLS by Shteyngart. The latter was completely irredeemable: I wanted to slap her. She was like an unfunny Babe Walker. The first were interesting, to a point, but felt really secondary and underdeveloped. I think there are weird sexualizing things going with women in fantasy/sci-fi. Why are sci-fi girls so busty with such teeny waists, for instance? Why are they all cold and cruel? Fitzgerald's Gloria I could most relate to (her list of the types of husbands was hilarious) but it seemed like Anthony never really understood her (though I would submit that Fitzgerald did). And she's just kind of a useless human being, but I think she's very much a product of her class and time.
I liked Carey Wallace's Blind Contessa, Daisy from TGG, Anna Karenina. As far as male characters, I like Bertie Wooster, George Smiley, and Robbie Turner, the main guy in Atonement but only when he was not involved with the girl. (British-obsessed, much?) American authors write males very differently from British authors, I've found.
Violet, the affianced woman in 5-year engagement (the jokes that necessitated the R-rating weren't even that funny, I would have preferred the PG-13 version) was a complex, fully realized character who I could very much relate to, perhaps the most of any woman character I've read about or seen on screen lately. As much as I mock it, the strong female presence is a reason I keep watching Glee, as I ranted to my coworker, "Rachel is a total b*tch, and she's self-centered, and she's immature, and she throws herself into an ill-advised relationship, but she's soooooo talented and I just can't help rooting for her." I think if a guy has that kind of passion and drive for his dreams no one blinks. She's also socially . . . unskilled, which again, would not matter in a male character.
The women of Mad Men are also interesting and look good doing it. Showrunners in general are heavily male, much more so than literary novelists, I'd say.
Also I realized that the only non-white character of either gender I listed was Eunice Park, who was so horrid I wondered sometimes if Shteyngart had some kind of vendetta against Koreans. I think screenwriters and authors have a very strong "people will relate to a white character better" bias. There's been a lot of discussion about this in the blogosphere re: Girls and Hunger Games, for those interested.
J.K. Rowling originally intended for Harry Potter to be a girl (with a different name I'm guessing), but she realized that boys wouldn't read it if it was about a girl, so she made the main character a boy instead.
Genuine Article wrote:J.K. Rowling originally intended for Harry Potter to be a girl (with a different name I'm guessing), but she realized that boys wouldn't read it if it was about a girl, so she made the main character a boy instead.
Which is sad, because I think at least part of that phenomenon is self-perpetuating.
) I was especially glad that Concealocanth mentioned Anna Karenina since I recently read it and thought a lot about how the title character was represented (and other female characters, of course). I don't necessarily agree with Concealocanth's opinion on how Tolstoy did, though I am always impressed with books from that era that have even slightly complex female characters. Good job, 19th century authors, that's why I like you.
I was happy to expound on my opinions and I am unapologetic in my stance on Katniss. Homegirl is the worst.
