A small and feeble thought: is gender-counting the silly response?
By which I'm groping for the idea that a "good" man is a better viewpoint character than a "bad" woman, however you choose to define good and bad. And even then it matters how they fit within the story.
As an example, consider how Lord Peter agonises over Harriet Vane's possible reactions to him. You could write their story from either point of view, and both, but without Lord Peter's PoV, the story is missing a vital part.
I think I can even see how you could write a feminist story without a single woman appearing. Maybe more obviously as a play than as a book, because written fictions have a flexibility that the stage doesn't. Stick half-a-dozen soldiers in a hut in the jungle, and you can certainly explore their attitudes to women.
But at this point I have the uncomfortable feeling that somebody is sneaking up on the tree with a chainsaw, and I'm out on a particularly precarious rim.
no subject
By which I'm groping for the idea that a "good" man is a better viewpoint character than a "bad" woman, however you choose to define good and bad. And even then it matters how they fit within the story.
As an example, consider how Lord Peter agonises over Harriet Vane's possible reactions to him. You could write their story from either point of view, and both, but without Lord Peter's PoV, the story is missing a vital part.
I think I can even see how you could write a feminist story without a single woman appearing. Maybe more obviously as a play than as a book, because written fictions have a flexibility that the stage doesn't. Stick half-a-dozen soldiers in a hut in the jungle, and you can certainly explore their attitudes to women.
But at this point I have the uncomfortable feeling that somebody is sneaking up on the tree with a chainsaw, and I'm out on a particularly precarious rim.