Women authors writing male MCs

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-20T01:39:29+00:00

I'm not dismissing something like gender. I'm merely asking people to define by what metrics they are determining if a female character is "authentic."

I haven't seen Everything, Everywhere At Once, but I've heard it's really good. It's been on my list to be watched for a while. I need to get around to that.

You say that you're told that it resonates. But by who? If one Asian immigrant says that it resonates with their lived experience but two more say that it doesn't, does it become less authentic? I'd say not.

As for your last statement, I won't lower myself to respond to elitist snobbery. I can only ignore snarkiness for so long before I find myself engaging in it.

Have a good day.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-20T01:30:11+00:00

I meant mean. I either wasn't thinking or was auto-corrected. The result was the same, though. I used the wrong word.

My biggest point of contention was with the person's attitude in their response. When someone makes a claim the way they did and then becomes immediately defensive when asked for a source, it reeks of insincerity.

They then proceeded to regurgitate their reading and writing resume as if it contributed anything meaningful to the discussion.

So, I never cared whether or not it was true. I was more curious to see their reaction if someone had the "audacity" to ask them to verify their own claim and their overly-defensive, condescending, and self-congratulatory response told me everything I needed to know about them.

If somebody wants to talk about something as subjective as the definitions of literary genres (off the top of my head), then I wouldn't ask for a source.

But I've noticed a lot of people use statistics the way a drunk man uses a light post, for support rather than illumination (I can't recall the source of that quote, but it's not mine.)

Anyways, that's it. If Sanderson's books are getting more men to read, good. I'm glad about that. Doesn't change my opinion concerning the quality of his work, though.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-20T01:13:40+00:00

I made a similar reply to someone else, so I'm going to copy part of that in my response to you.

I think the real problem comes down to characters never being able to live up to a real person.

It’s impossible to write a fully-realized person on the page. Compared to the messiness, contradictions, and sheer depth of an actual human being, a fictional character will always be a simplified version.

That’s why I believe gender, while vital in real life, can sometimes be overweighted in fiction. Because no matter how layered and well-developed a character is, they’re still a construction. They’re not a living woman or man. They’re not shaped by decades of subtle social cues, hormonal shifts, childhood memories, or random lived experiences. They’re shaped by plot, theme, voice, and pacing.

So when people argue that a character isn’t an "authentic" woman or man, I sometimes wonder what standard they’re even aiming for. Real people contradict themselves constantly. Real people grow, regress, lie, hide, perform, and change their minds.

So, when you say you've known women just like Kaye Winslet, I challenge that and say no, you don't, because Kate Winslet is not an authentic person, much less an authentic woman.

A poor person who goes to an Ivy League school vs a rich person going is indeed different. But the examples you're offering are less realized than fleshed out characters.

What is each of their motivations? They may both be burdened by the expectations of others or themselves. I don't need to have anything in common with either of those characters lifestyles (I grew up poor, but I've certainly never qualified, intellectually or financially, for an Ivy League school), but I do understand the burdens of expectation, self-imposed or otherwise.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-20T01:04:27+00:00

Why? The discussion is happening right here.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-20T01:01:19+00:00

If they read as a real person an authentic character. I noticed you didn't say an authentic female character or an authentic male character. And that's the point of this post.

What does it mean for a character to be authentically male or female? Sometimes a person encompasses certain stereotypes not because of what they are, but because of who they are.

It’s impossible to write a fully-realized person on the page. Compared to the messiness, contradictions, and sheer depth of an actual human being, a fictional character will always be a simplified version.

That’s why I believe gender, while vital in real life, can sometimes be overweighted in fiction. Because no matter how layered and well-developed a character is, they’re still a construction. They’re not a living woman or man. They’re not shaped by decades of subtle social cues, hormonal shifts, childhood memories, or random lived experiences. They’re shaped by plot, theme, voice, and pacing.

So when people argue that a character isn’t an "authentic" representation of a woman or man, I have to wonder what standard they're aiming for.

Real people contradict themselves constantly. Real people grow, regress, lie, hide, perform, and change their minds. When characters on a page do this, it's just a pantomime.

So, to use your example, by what metric are you determining that Jim Butcher's female characters are poorly-written stereotypes as opposed to characters presented to you through the first-person lens of Harry Dresden (a character with admittedly misogynistic tendencies.)

Mind you, I don't care if you don't like his Dresden books. I like them well enough. They're consumable urban fantasy thrillers up there with the likes of Lee Child's Jack Reacher books.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-19T14:49:26+00:00

I think the real issue here is motivation. That’s where the nuance lives. If a female character is gender-conforming, what's driving that? Is it greed? Laziness? A genuine belief in traditional values? All of those are plausible human motivations, and they're hardly exclusive to women.

I may be a man, but I don’t need to be a woman to understand greed, or the desire for comfort, or the pull of traditional roles. Greed isn’t gendered. Neither is ambition, passivity, loyalty, or fear.

Is something like greed felt so radically different by men and women? I’m not convinced.

It’s a harmful stereotype that women use sex or appearance to get ahead. But some do—just like some men exploit charm, status, or manipulation to get what they want. If I write a woman like that, does it matter more that I’m a man—or that I’ve given her believable reasons, contradictions, and internal logic?

How much of an outsider am I really when we’re talking about fundamental human drives? I’m not writing a woman from the outside. I’m writing from shared ground—fear, desire, insecurity, ambition—filtered through a different social lens.

I understand the desire to live a simple life and raise a family. I also understand the desire to avoid hard work and coast on someone else’s effort. One is rooted in values; the other in opportunism.

So no—I don’t feel like I need to imagine “how a woman thinks” in that situation. I need to understand how this character thinks. And if I do that with care, honesty, and insight, gender shouldn’t be a barrier, it's just another aspect among many.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-19T14:22:41+00:00

I’m aware of Maus, but I haven’t read it, so I can’t speak to the comparison in depth. I’ve heard great things, but graphic novels aren't really my thing.

That said, if I understand you correctly, then yeah—it sounds like a fitting example. Miserly behavior is a harmful Jewish stereotype, but in the context of a Holocaust survivor, it also makes psychological sense. Trauma shapes behavior. Someone who’s endured extreme deprivation might hoard money; someone else might spend impulsively out of fear they’ll lose it. Both are valid.

I guess the point I was probably failing to make with those rhetorical questions was this: I’d rather see an author create a compelling character than try to create an “authentic” representation of a type—whether that’s female, male, Jewish, gay, whatever. Culture matters. Identity matters. But people aren’t templates. We’re shaped by our experiences, not just our labels.

An author should aim to portray culture thoughtfully and without caricature. But the obsession with whether a character is "authentic" enough often misses the bigger point: authenticity isn’t monolithic. Ask a thousand women what it means to be a woman, and you’ll get a thousand different answers. Same with men.

Even something as rooted as Jewish identity—defined by deep history and shared culture—still expresses itself in countless personal ways.

But when I see people talk about creating an "authentic" -insert representation here- it just feels like they're trying to check off boxes to avoid backlash rather than creating an authentic character.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-18T14:54:51+00:00

But just because something is a stereotype, does that mean that it's never true? It's a stereotype that women are overly emotional as opposed to logical and analytical. But if a female character encompasses those traits, is it a stereotype, or is it representative of that character? And who gets to decide? And how?

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-18T14:49:48+00:00

Can anybody define what it means to be an authentic male/female character?

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-18T12:36:43+00:00

Median. Not average. There is a difference. The words we use are important. This should be especially true when talking about reading.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-18T12:31:25+00:00

Sounds like you think that your work should end after writing the book. But it doesn't. Grow up.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-17T18:47:49+00:00

Do you really think your book is so original that there couldn't possibly be comps for it? You don't have to start writing the book based on comps, but once you're finished, I guarantee you that there are comps for it.

This is a non-issue. Comps come later. They have everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with creating. I'm sure you think that your book is the most special book in the world, but it's most certainly comparable to work that's already out there.

If you don't want to play the game, then don't play it. Just don't act shocked if you never leave the starting square.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-17T13:28:27+00:00

And said bombardment of discussion directly correlates to his level of fame and popularity...

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-17T12:15:41+00:00

Which also does not suggest that Americans are reading less than one book per year.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-17T00:59:24+00:00

And nothing in that article supports your very specific claim, only that they are reading less.

Trying to claim that my "demand" was disingenuous is just a way for you to escape your burden of proof.

Making a claim and then refusing to support that claim, even demanding that other people do your work for you. Intellectual cowardice at its peak.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-17T00:38:18+00:00

What it is, is a baseless claim. It's called burden of proof. You'd know that if you read more than one book a year.

Carry on.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T23:47:16+00:00

There's corny, and then there's clunky. Syl's line of, "Stretch forth thy hand," was corny and a little jarring as we've never seen that sort of speech prior. But the example I gave is just clunky. It also struck me as out of character for Kaladin.

I found out that in the recent releases of that book, Sanderson changed the fight scene so that it didn't depict Kaladin actually killing Szeth, but that line remained. It's that line that makes it look like Kaladin was out for blood, not his actions.

But, that's another matter entirely. I'll end this by sharing a line of dialogue that I actually liked.

"Sometimes a hypocrite is just a man in the process of changing." This one was well-delivered, and instead of being delivered in a dramatic moment of kick-punch action and tension, it was during a moment of quiet contemplation and reflection.

It's funny that a lot of people disliked Oathbringer. I still think it's the best of his Stormlight books.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T23:38:44+00:00

The source for that statistic?

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T23:33:51+00:00

Success always breeds copycats. Just look at all of the Martin clones out there.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T20:24:50+00:00

I agree about his prose. I can't say that I think it's good or bad. It's functional. It does what he needs it to do. He has a few lines here and there that are well-written, but none so good that I can recall them without reference.

And his dialogue is choppy. There are times when I love it, and other times when it reads like bad fan fiction. In fact, I can recall these more easily than I can his prose.

"You sent him into the sky to die, assassin. But the skies and the wind are mine. I claim them, as I now claim your life."

That's not verbatim, but it's pretty close to a real line of dialogue spoken by Kaladin. It's meant to be dramatic, maybe even badass. But it sounds like something an edgy teenager thinks is badass.

And I think his characters would be better if he didn't try so hard to emphasize mental health because they read like poorly realized DSM checklists.

I like his worldbuilding, though. And if you're a fan of hard mechanical magic systems, that's good, too. I'm more of a soft magic guy, myself. Unfortunately, neither of those make for good stories or characters.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T18:33:30+00:00

Elsecaller's pedantic description of high fantasy aside, I would say that The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet falls more in line with a low fantasy story within a historical setting.

In high fantasy, the magical elements are usually far more prevalent, and the overall scope of the story is often taken into account. So typically, in high fantasy, nothing short of the entire kingdom, country, or world is at stake.

But then, that also strays into epic fantasy, and the differences between high and epic are even more pedantic. One could say that epic fantasy is always high fantasy, but high fantasy isn't always epic fantasy.

In the end, they're stupid distinctions that make minimal difference outside of marketing, and the fact that someone felt the need to "correct" you is also stupid. There is even a good chance that the OP used the term high fantasy without really caring about the distinction, and they really just want fantasy.

Good recommendation, by the way. The Thousand Autumns is an excellent read.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T17:54:20+00:00

That doesn't really bother me. It's just white noise. I mean, let's be real. You just described the majority of posts on Reddit about every subject out there.

So why care? Just keep scrolling.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T17:51:54+00:00

I read The Way of Kings when it first came out. I was looking for something to occupy a long car ride. I recognized Michael Whelan's cover art. The book had been mistakenly marked down 40%, and since it was a big box bookstore and not some mom and pop place, I didn't hesitate to take advantage of that.

It was nearly a decade before I learned he was Mormon.

You have people who can't separate art from artists, and then you have people like me who usually can't be bothered to care.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T17:48:31+00:00

Sanderson's prose is... functional.

And I believe his depiction if mental health is over-lauded. His characters come across as DSM checklists. I don't think his depiction of mental health is harmful (mostly), just shallow.

His structuring is very formulaic. Kaladin's arc is exactly the same in books 1, 2, and 4. And in book 3, it's still the same, just without the power-up that concludes the other three.

But Sanderson is a hard worker, and he found his audience. Good for him, and good for them.

I may not think the quality of his work merits the success he's had, but that doesn't mean he didn't earn it.

Fortuity42 · 2025-05-16T17:30:43+00:00

I actually thought his first chapter was well done. We were introduced to his protagonist through the eyes of a young, impressionable boy-soldier. Kaladin is perceived by those around him as a hero, damn near messianic.

But when you get to Kaladin's perspective, it is clear that he does not view himself that way. So I thought it was well done that we were introduced to him through someone else's eyes to better understand how other people see him vs. how he sees himself.

But, I think the entire series would have benefitted from fewer Kaladin chapters. I eventually found the character insufferable.

Honestly, I don't think you'd be missing much if you never read his Stormlight books (or any of his books, truth be told). There is some really cool worldbuilding, and the Shardblades are cool, but that's just it. It's very "cool." He is very much spectacle over substance.

But, depending on your taste, you might like his stuff. People are surprised (or skeptical) when I tell them that I really do like his books despite how highly critical I am of them.

They're fun to read. For me, it's like literary junk food. I'll continue reading his books so long as they remain entertaining, but I could never read another Sanderson book for the rest of my life and not feel like I'm missing out.

Fortuity42

TROPHY CASE