Battle of the Sexes. There can be only one gender.

I judge quality of literature by quality of prose, characterization, attention to diction and language, word choice. I pay almost no attention to plot when I'm reading something literary for school. As my teacher once said, even something as simple as a boy getting off a bus can be a masterpiece of art. In that case, if you're looking for plot, then you'll be disappointed. And I agree that Dan Brown isn't a great author; I just happened to think of him at that moment.

Also, I place less importance on sci-fi and fantasy because they can't be related to. People mostly read those for entertainment whereas professors/scholars spend most of their time on literary fiction. So, no matter how believable or vast of a setting an author of fantasy creates, that author can't really compete with a great author of literary fiction. Sorry if I offended fantasy fans here. I actually like to read fantasy once in a while to get my mind of the books we read at school, but my opinion still stands.

Acglaphotis - I've heard a lot of great things about The Picture of Dorian Gray so I'll definitely read that soon.

 

Well, I don't always know the sex of the author I'm reading but I usually prefer female writers. Many(most) of my favorite authors are female, although I do appreciate works by talented male authors. I think there are tons of male writers who are excellent. More females seem seriously interested, at least in my experience. I know there are more famous male writers whom everyone loves, but honestly I consider most of them overrated. Women's contribution to most fields is considered dismal to men's, but I don't believe it's because women are any less capable.

I look for how well I relate to something. I like things that are original, classy, funny, well planned, and absorbing and generally tell a good story with fascinating characters.

 

Quantity doesn't equal quality. Just because there are more male authors doesn't mean anything at all.

Don't people consider the fact that many of these older authors were in a time period were women were mainly in the kitchens. Equal rights is still a new thing for women considering how long they were oppressed. Women are making truly wonderful contributions to the literary world, and to other previously unconquered areas as well. I would mention each of these people, but they are mostly unheard of so I see little point.

I can see how some people don't realize this, but to me it seems ridiculous to think that women are less skilled than men in writing and reading. This, to me, is the area of woman's strength compared to men. Men usually trump women in things like science and engineering, but not in literature.

 

Let's see, one definition:

"In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the page-turner) focuses more on narrative and plot."​

Another one:

"In Literary Fiction, as opposed to genre fiction, the language is heavier, the imagery lush, the characters detailed and story line thought provoking"

​

The first one is from wikipedia, the other is from my textbook. The Lord of the Rings fit this description, yet it is not valid because it is fantastic in nature? Are you denying Faust, the Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Jules Verne's works, 1984, Farenheit 451, etc, their importance simply because they are science fiction or fantay? Of course they can be placed in a genre: those works made those genres.
​

I know you didn't mean it this way, but I still get a little bit upset when people refer as to what professors read simply because they're professors, as if people with other occupations couldn't possibly be as knowledgeable in literature as they are. I'm not taking this out on you, I'm just saying that I get a bit angry when they say what you said, because they're basically implying what I just said.

Fair enough.

It's an amazing book, I'd wish more people would read it.


@Laciemn:

Not by itself, but there are about 200 years more worth of literature made by men, which although it doesn't disqualify women's achievement, it makes people most likely to choose a bigger library.

Yes, but that wasn't the point of the question.

It is, but again, relevance?

Now, that would get you some dirty looks where I live. The few Engineering girls I've met seriously out-grade everyone else on their calse.

 

Works like Faust and the Divine Comedy are seen as poetry (although Faust is technically a play, it employs a poetic meter). I was only talking about novels here since poetry places heavy emphasis on language and flow more than anything else.

1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are good but I don't remember the writing in either of those books being amazingly good. Let me ask you this. Why is it that most top 10 or 100 lists of best novels don't contain sci-fi or fantasy novels? And I'm talking about lists from a group of experts in the field (editors, scholars, even some writers - although I have an issue with the latter), not by an individual.

 

e

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about literature in general.

That's an essential difference in our definition of 'great'. For me, writing takes a secondary role to story milieu, characters and ultimate message of the work. Writing is a medium to provide me with those, not backwards.

Elitism? I don't know for sure why, but I don't really care all that much. All of those lists are done by groups of people, who have their own definitions of great literature, so it doesn't help your claim that the authors you mentioned are objectively better. Even then, time's 2005 top 100 books included fantasy (LOTR and The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe) and sci-fi (Neuromancer, Snow Crash, and 1984).

See, but if they don't even consider anything outside the scope of what is branded as literary fiction, why would they even be valid. Why don't you provide some discussion, instead of relying on the ideas and actions of scholars, editors and professors? It's more fun that way.

 

The quality of writing should be more important than plot or message or message of the work. A writer could have a brilliant plot but if the writing is poor, then it defeats the purpose of the great plot. This is why I place great emphasis on quality of writing more than anything else.

I also place literary fiction higher than genre fiction because literary fiction is primarily realistic. It's easier to relate to a character in a realistic novel than to someone in a fantasy setting. The realistic setting also allows for more of a cultural impact, thus I could argue that the message in works of literary fiction have a more long lasting and powerful impact than genre fiction.

 

I agree somewhat. On my list of what is important in a novel quality of writing is above plot, but plot is still pretty high up there. I would rather not waste my time reading a beautifully written book about nothing when there are plenty of beautifully written books about something. I would also rather read a decently written book with a good plot than a beautifully written book with no plot. This is of course something that varies greatly from reader to reader.

Do I place literary fiction higher than genre fiction? Perhaps on the grand scheme of things. But it really comes down to why I am reading. I read the classics because they are classics and I want to be able to participate in the public dialogue. But when I want to read for the pure pleasure of it and to escape from the real world for a time being I will usually read genre fiction. It is for the same reason that when it comes to TV and movies I tend to steer clear of dramas and romance---I have plenty of reality in my own life, fiction is for escaping that.

As for the OP, I would pic men authors. I realize quantity is not necessarily more important than quality, but given a large enough pool you will have more quality to choose from as well. Hopefully as more and more women enter the writing field over the decades this imbalance will level off. I do not believe either men or women are inherently better at writing. In general, one group may be better overall at a particular type of writing but I think those generalities are useless when talking about an individual writer.

 

Perhaps most people would choose a bigger library, but in my opinion that would be silly. There are more than enough books and stories written by women to keep one person busy for a lifetime, so if they are basically the same in quality as men's work then why would you choose a bigger selection?

It wasn't exactly a response to your question, it is simply something that came up in my head that is relative to the thread.

Okay, well it is simply my impression. I don't know anything about the girls where you live, all I can speak on is my own experience in the world.

 

It doesn’t matter if you can’t finish them in your lifetime. A bigger selection gives you more choice.

OK, you are about to go on a long plane ride and you need a book to read. You can go into one of two rooms to choose your book. Room 1 has a bookcase with 10 books on it. Don’t worry, they are all great books. Room 2 has a bookcase with 100 books on it. All of those books are just as great. Which room are you going into to pick your book?

 

That isn't the scenario the thread originally stated, though. It states books by men or books by women--and all the books by either men or women would have a huge amount of selection.

But, if it were a choice between 10 and 100 I probably wouldn't care. I'm what you call a minimalist I suppose--I don't necessarily believe that more is better. I think I would actually prefer having only 10 books to choose from because I could then give more attention to each book before I make my choice.

 

I know, I was just referring solely to your point on the size of the selection in that particular point.

And now your previous statement makes much more sense to me. The two of us are just coming from two different camps of thought on this. I am also a minimalist in many ways as well, but NOT in the size of my potential pool of book choices But you also make an excellent point in the extra amount of time you can spend in actually making that choice with the smaller pool.

 

And so we agree to disagree =]. I definitely get why some would want the bigger selection.

I'm a little surprised this thread hasn't gotten crazy controversial yet, to be honest. It's good that it appears most everybody at least respects opinions different than their own, which is somewhat rare on forums.

 

I think that is because those of us who chose men authors can fall back on the innocuous "larger selection" argument without seeming sexist I am sure if the question was "Which gender is the better writer?" things would have gotten dirty fast. And by the way, it would be a stupid question so don't anyone ask it!

This thread has made me take a harder look at my reading choices though. I don't think I give modern day female writers enough consideration when I am choosing my next book. In fact, I think the only fiction written by a woman in my lifetime that I have read was Interview With a Vampire. Of course I read authors like Jane Austen, but nothing modern.

The question I have to ask myself is whether or not the books I enjoy reading just happen to be written by all men or if on a subconcious level I move on to another book when I see the author has a female name. As much as I read I have to admit the second explanation is more likely. I'm going to have to rectify that.

 

Most high school kids hate Atwood. I couldn't stand The Handmaid's Tale. I read mostly Canadian books right now so I can have a familiarity with the publishers (and I like them) and I can tell you that she does not represent what most Canadian writers are like.

 

Um, you do realize that Tolkien himself was a professor at Oxford, right? And so was C.S. Lewis, for that matter.
Despite your beliefs, intellectual literature is NOT limited to literary fiction. Anyone - and I mean anyone - can learn to write in a flowery prose style if they worked at it, it's not that hard to use a thesaurus and incorporate tons of fancy adjectives into your writing to make it sound 'pretty.' Imo, there has to be real substance to the plot in order for it to be considered real literature, and you can't have much more substance than the likes of what the authors I mentioned produced. I mean, it would be hard to take a person who doesn't believe that Dune incorporates a great many themes and meaningful messages that are applicable to the real world seriously. Ever heard of an allegory, just because something is a so-called work of 'fantasy,' doesn't mean it can't be applicable to real life. In fact, I would say that this type of literature is even more intellectual in a broader sense of the word, because you have to look beyond the surface to realize what is the message that it's portraying.

 

Not everyone can learn to use flowery prose. Even consulting a thesaurus or dictionary just to add fancy words will most likely cause the writing to suffer. Hemingway was someone who used simple language yet his prose is amazing. I'm not talking about fancy language here.

And no, there doesn't really have to be a plot in order for something to be good. Just as an example, take a look at Ulysses. It is considered by many to be the greatest novel written in English, and yet there is not really a plot to speak of.

I'm not saying that fantasy can't be applied to real life. I'm just saying it's more likely that readers will relate to literary fiction.

 

That is entirely your own opinion, but I myself certainly wouldn't be interested in reading a whole novel that simply rambles on about nothing. To be honest, I think the people who considered 'Ulysses' the greatest novel ever written are the same kind of people who consider abstract art that looks like something a 5-year-old could have painted to be 'beautiful.'

 

SO we admit that all art is subjective and at the whims of the current interpreter, that's good.

I think you all have kind of strayed from the path intended...I am not sure this was meant to be a debate so much as "Penny for your thoughts," you all have spent many dolllars...just pointing it out....

 

A book like Ulysses doesn't ramble on at all, and it isn't in any way analogous to abstract art. Joyce just placed more emphasis on language more than anything else. I agree that not many people would like it since literary fiction appeals to a much smaller audience. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

Well, to get back on topic, I think it comes down to this - women tend to be better at writing beautifully, while men tend to be better at writing intellectually. They are two different styles of writing and neither one is necessarily better than the other, it just comes down to personal preference.

 

I would find this very hard, On the one i really enjoy the Books of John Grisham, I'm a real Shakespeare fan and I enjoyed the De Vinic Code.

On the other hand I would find it hard to live without Harry Potter and as I read on the bus to work the I find 'Chick Lit' is easier to read in short burst and not to testing on the brain.

I think I would have to keep the 'Chick Lit' as long as I could still go to the theatre! Now If I had to choose which Gender of playwriters I would choose then I would say Male.

 

What if it has a male pen name but the author is actually a woman? LOL...always looking for a way around the rules.
My favorite author is a woman. BUT...my favorite book, Swiss Family Robinson (which I've read three times) is by a male author.

Argh! Whoever started this thread is evil.

I'll have to go with male too, but only because they seem to have more books (not because female authors aren't as good).

 

I would never post a contentious thread - it would upset the wa of the universe, and we couldn't have that.

*Looks bland, goes back to destabilizing the Middle East*

Seriously, though, this thread has turned into some thundering good conversations. Not every thread has to be "teehee, what did you eat for breakfast?", so I try and liven things up with some contentious issues. The questions with the most potential are almost always about contentious issues, because these are the things that people think and care deeply about. Israel vs Palestine is always going to be more interesting than corn flakes vs muesli, and for jolly good reasons.

 

I'm amazed nobody's mentioned Agatha Christie yet.

It's difficult to choose, because each gender has its offering of truly brilliant (Agatha Christie, Tolkien, David Hopkins*, Rowling) and truly awful (Meyer...um...more to come, when I think of them) writers, at the moment, I think I'd prefer male writers.

*Obscure reference, I'd be amazed if anybody's read anything by him