A good book isn’t gender specific

By Ariel Garlow

I’ll start this blunt. As a big fan of the literary world, I’m sort of peeved when the occasional person says, “ugh, we don’t read any classic female authors because most fans of literature today still devalue women! Look at these female authors we aren’t reading - that’s a sign of patriarchal oppression!”

There are fewer classic female authors because of the gender issues in the past. Correct. And since there are fewer female authors, you are going to notice that you’re reading more male classic authors than female. The amount of good literature a teacher or professor can choose from on the side of male authors is a big pool, not because classic male authors are better but because they are just more common. The entire pool of female authors is, thus, smaller.

You shouldn’t force people to read books just because females write them. You should give people books to read because that book is good. Forcing students to read female authors almost seems like you don’t have enough faith in the talent of said authors.

So let’s say there’s an equal ratio of good authors to shitty authors in each classical gender pool. Say the number 100 represents the male pool, and 20 represents the female pool. Now let’s say the equal ratio of good authors is 40 percent (admit that not everyone who writes a book is good at it). That means you can pull 40 good male authors from their pool, and 8 good female authors from their respective pool.

But wait, you say, 40 men and only 8 women? That’s completely unfair. Now we’re drowning in male power fantasies and father-son relationships. Where’s the female perspective?

I agree that the fact that only having 8 good female-written novels as compared to 40 good male-written novels is a total rip-off. Though quite a few classic male authors, take F. Scott Fitzgerald or Turgenev for instance, can write from the female perspective without totally screwing it up, you can bet that at least half of that 40 is going to be focusing almost entirely from their own perspective. That’s what writers do best, whether we like it or not. “Write about what you know” isn’t a suggestion, it’s almost the basic formula for a great piece of literature.

But are we only reading 8 female authors as opposed to 40 male authors because our current society devalues women? Despite that women are still at a disadvantage, this is not the main case. We are simply feeling the repercussions of the classic age. What I mean is, it would have been swell if women writers in the 1800’s or early 1900’s were given more chance to show their talents. But they weren’t.

Many great old female writers we still cherish today even felt it necessary to use male (or gender neutral) pseudonyms. George Eliot, author of Silas Marner, was really Mary Anne Evans; Charlotte Bronte often went under “Currer Bell”; the author of Little Women, “A.M. Barnard”, is Louisa May Alcott. Would I like to change the past so that the pool of classic women authors is bigger, and thus more women authors who powerfully excel to the top ranks of literary fame? Of course I would. I can’t think of many people who would say “no” if they were suddenly given the ability to allocate more gender equality to our often shameful past on this planet. Can we do that? Unfortunately, no, history cannot be re-written. This is also why I think it’s important to read a mix of classic and contemporary authors.

So what can be done to ensure great classic women writers are given a chance? I think one way some professors go about the issue is ultimately damaging.

Suddenly, you’re not reading a book because it’s good; you’re reading it because a woman writes it.
Suddenly you’re stating that this writer isn’t unpopular because they have a terrible novel, but because of their gender status alone.

Suddenly (and this is what I abhor so much about the problem) great women writers of the past are overlooked because they’ve apparently already “had their time to shine”. Is Harper Lee too mainstream for you now? Did Mary Shelley suddenly stop being a woman? Did Edith Wharton do something to piss of the Gender Studies department at McMaster? Willa Cather? Charlotte Perkins Gilman? We don’t all agree with Ayn Rand, but as someone with clean style and ability as a novelist, why does her name never come up when we’re talking about these prolific women writers? Don’t you still enjoy Sylvia Plath?

Why is it always Jane Austen plus some writer I’ve never heard of and frankly wish I’d never read?

By forcing students to read these obscure female authors, I don’t think we’re helping possible literature fans respect the capabilities women.

I think we’re teaching new English students that women’s rights in the writing world has to be a painful and boring experience, when it can be an inspiring one. This doesn’t mean, “let’s only read the people we already know.”

A great woman once wrote a book alternatively titled The Modern Prometheus with fright, astounding insight, amazing narrative and deep emotional value. It was imaginative and takes the reader outside the commonplace yet still in the realms of societal critique.

Instead you’re telling them to read about how a couple of young ladies went to some boring parties and cared way too much about what Mr. Darcy thinks.

One day, I hope to be a writer. I’d like to believe that my novels will be read because I am good, not simply because I am a woman and some feminist literature prof is exploiting my gender representation to make a point.