the statement i am replying to is as such: some feminist theory defines women (and their writing) as fluid, multiple, elusive, obscure. is this confirmed or denied by what you have read? is this a creative or demeaning image?
I think that labels and stereotypes tend to be demeaning. The label "feminist" itself implies superiority of a gender (specifically the female), but when taken into account the "status quo," its aims of equality seem more obvious. So to be fair, starting out from this perspective is complex and potentially destructive to any objective critical analysis.
To be fair, though, I think that stereotypes, generalizations, and even prejudice have their use in the world of literature and the analysis thereof. Women and their writing CAN be obscure, fluid, and elusive, just as any man's writing can be. But to be realistic, I have seen that a man and woman writing on the same topic tend to have incredibly different methods of telling the same details.
For example, Bram Stoker, in his novel
Dracula, states: "No man knows till he has suffered from the night how sweet and dear to his heart and eye the morning can be." Anne Rice, in her novel
Interview with the Vampire, states:"I remember it completely; yet I do not remember any other sunrise before it. I remember the light came first to the tops of the French windows, a paling behind the lace curtains, and then a gleam growing brighter and brighter in patches among the leaves of the trees. Finally, the sun came through the windows themselves and the lace lay in shadows on the stone floor, and all over the form of my sister, who was still sleeping, shadows of lace on the shawl over her shoulders and head. As soon as she was warm, she pushed the shawl away without awakening, and then the sun shone full on her eyes and she tightened her eyelids. Then it was gleaming on the table where she rested her head in her arms, and gleaming, blazing, in the water in the pitcher. And I could feel it on my hands on the counterpane and then on my face. I lay in the bed thinking about all the things the vampire had told me, and then it was that I said good-bye to the sunrise and went out to become a vampire. It was... the last sunrise."
Now granted a comparison of these two quotes is not exact or direct, as they are in different styles, from different periods, and even in completely different perspectives. But the fact remains that Stoker
chose to relay the philosophical concept in a terse and direct manner, and that Rice
chose to relay the entire experience as a direct translation of interpretations and experiences. When probed after this long and melancholy memory as to whether he misses the sunrise he says "No, there are so many other things." To Rice, and to the main character (Louis), this is a short description of a less than fully important experience. Some might argue this is both elusive and obscure, especially since the impressions of Louis' sister end up having nothing to do with the story, and can only be interpreted as a psychological or at least subconscious imprint on the character's last view of mortality, granting a "fluid" interpretation of good versus evil. Stoker, on the other hand, draws a stark and obvious line between night and day, good and evil.
I realize this isn't really a quote, but I have insomnia and I'm bored. So use whatever you want there, if you wanna throw that in as research go for it (Stoker's Irish, so that might help).
For a short(er), (slightly) more to the point quote...
Women in literature are often accused of many things:failing to write men without seeming overly austere or far too sensitive, failing to appropriately alternate between formal and casual diction when the situation calls for it (Jane Austen Syndrome, some call it), and struggling to imprint a motive to every casual occurrence in a story. But I think men and women look for these things in women's writing, and since they're formed a bias, it inevitably shows up. That's not to say that women and men aren't likely to write in ways that reflect their social standing: but I think that's more about the individual than the groups to which they belong. I'm fairly certain transgender individuals would be accused of writing "too much" like the opposite gender, since that's with whom they identify socially.
Hope that's at least a little helpful. : )
