divia comments on My Way - Less Wrong

31 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 17 April 2009 01:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (123)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: divia 17 April 2009 04:28:01AM *  14 points [-]

Your mention of the difficulty of men writing realistic fictional female characters reminds me very much of a passage from Virginia Woolfe's A Room of One's Own that is the most insightful exploration of the issue I have ever read:

'Chloe liked Olivia,' I read. And then it struck me how immense a change was there. Chloe liked Olivia perhaps for the first time in literature. Cleopatra did not like Octavia. And how completely ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA would have been altered had she done so! As it is, I thought, letting my mind, I am afraid, wander a little from LIFE'S ADVENTURE, the whole thing is simplified, conventionalized, if one dared say it, absurdly. Cleopatra's only feeling about Octavia is one of jealousy. Is she taller than I am? How does she do her hair? The play, perhaps, required no more. But how interesting it would have been if the relationship between the two women had been more complicated. All these relationships between women, I thought, rapidly recalling the splendid gallery of fictitious women, are too simple. So much has been left out, unattempted. And I tried to remember any case in the course of my reading where two women are represented as friends. There is an attempt at it in DIANA OF THE CROSSWAYS. They are confidantes, of course, in Racine and the Greek tragedies. They are now and then mothers and daughters. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men. It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Jane Austen's day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of a woman's life is that; and how little can a man know even of that when he observes it through the black or rosy spectacles which sex puts upon his nose. Hence, perhaps, the peculiar nature of woman in fiction; the astonishing extremes of her beauty and horror; her alternations between heavenly goodness and hellish depravity--for so a lover would see her as his love rose or sank, was prosperous or unhappy. This is not so true of the nineteenth-century novelists, of course. Woman becomes much more various and complicated there. Indeed it was the desire to write about women perhaps that led men by degrees to abandon the poetic drama which, with its violence, could make so little use of them, and to devise the novel as a more fitting receptacle. Even so it remains obvious, even in the writing of Proust, that a man is terribly hampered and partial in his knowledge of women, as a woman in her knowledge of men.

Ever since I read this, I have taken notice of the relationships between female characters in books I read, and I do think its a rare male author who captures them well.

Comment author: gjm 17 April 2009 04:33:41PM *  13 points [-]

A more recent instantiation of the same idea is the Bechdel Test or Mo Movie Measure (it's named after a character called Mo in Alison Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For), which a movie passes if it

1. has at least two women in it
2. who talk to one another
3. about something other than a man.

Depressingly few movies pass this test. Of course it can be applied to things other than movies.

Comment author: ciphergoth 17 April 2009 04:37:08PM *  0 points [-]

Ludicrously minor nitpick: that strip appeared in DTWOF before Mo or any regular characters were introduced.

(Fun Home highly recommended btw)

Comment author: gjm 17 April 2009 05:02:31PM 0 points [-]

It is none the less sometimes called the MMM, and the name does come from that character even though in the strip the test has nothing to do with her. See this blog entry for a confession for the person who named it the MMM.