Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.ruhr-uni-bochum.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.gtn.com!osn.de!noris.net!blackbush.xlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!nebo.vii.com!xmission!news.transport.com!sun.lclark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-e2a.gnn.com!howland.erols.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!newsreader.jvnc.net!kjahds.com!not-for-mail
From: kjahds@kjahds.com (Kenneth Albanowski)
Subject: Re: Gender roles in IF (Was:Re: Is there a place for sex in IF?)
Message-ID: <51q472$2f3@kjahds.com>
Lines: 100
Sender: news@tigger.jvnc.net (Zee News Genie)
Organization: None
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.960917112415.17820B-100000@adamant.res.wpi.edu> <51mt4f$jsj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:30:26 GMT

In article <51mt4f$jsj@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Phyllis902 <phyllis902@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Like it or not, all of us, men and women, have roles that we are expected
>to play, and those roles do effect who we become. [...] You can't write
>about REAL people without writing about their gender, roles and attitudes.
>And any attempt to do so is a form of (self-imposed, perhaps) censorship.

Perhaps the author is trying for something different then "not offending".

Consider that the power of traditional text adventures is in the
_under_statement. Do you decry Zork because the descriptions of the rooms
don't include rough measurements, or because some particular rock formations
aren't described? Part of the art of writing fiction (interactive and
otherwise) is leaving out detail so that the reader can fill it in with
their own imagination and experience, creating a result that is deeper then
would be possible if everything were explicit. "Immersion" is the desired
result.

>But, if authors are writing about characters that have no gender because
>they are afraid of offending someone of the opposite sex, by "leaving him
>out of the story,"

I'm quite sure the issue was not one of avoiding offense (and indeed that is
a rather deplorable motive to assign to an author,) but was the experiment
of making the characters ambiguous, so that the reader can view them in any
way they feel comfortable with, which undoubtedly will include points of
view that neither you nor I would immediately consider.

> they are doing their audience a big disservice by implying that those
>people are unable to sympathize with, or care about, someone of the
>opposite sex.

How did you come up with this notion? I fail to see how it can be derived
from Jigsaw -- you say yourself that the roles are ambiguous. How does that
state _anything_ about how one class of people feels about another? 

I can derive the exact opposite, in fact: by leaving the roles ambiguous,
the reader is free to view Black and White _not_ as "myself and someone I
care for of the sex opposite to my own", but instead as "myself and someone
who is/was/should be my lover/lifemate/friend". Absolutely no statement
whatsoever is being made about gender classes. The reader is free to apply
their own standards, _whatever they may be_. By removing the restrictions of
gender on the characters, restrictions on the reader are also lifted. If a
higher number of readers can achieve deeper immersion in the story, is not
some purpose served? 

>And yes, that DOES offend me, and that is part of the "ugly trend" I was
>talking about.

From my viewpoint, it seems that you have derived the offense solely from
your own viewpoint, and not from the work in question.

You say:

> You can't write about REAL people without writing about their gender,
>roles and attitudes.

Certainly people in the real world have all of those attributes. But are you
sure that they are all directly correlated? Even if you are sure, are you
sure that others are sure? That's the key issue here.

Could you not write about roles and attitudes, and let gender fill itself
in? Could you not even write solely about actions and behaviours, and leave
all the rest to the reader?

And why stop at gender? If leaving out gender is poor and "unoffensive"
writing, then can't the same be said about skin color, eye color, hair
color, bodily piercings, weight, family income, and any other number of
things? All of these undoubtedly have impacts on a person's roles and
addititudes, to various degrees. But are all necessary to understand a
character? And doesn't the use of such characteristics run the risk of
invoking a stereotype in the mind of the reader, instead of the author's
words? Is the author, by leaving these things out, making _any_ sort of
comment about the ignored traits and those who share them? Is the lack of
comment always an implicit statement of disregard, dislike, and dismissal?

Have you considered some "classic" writing, like The_Lord_of_the_Rings? Does
knowing the actual gender (never mind the sex) of the Ents and their
Entwives really tell you anything about their roles and attitudes?

The Elves are perhaps better characterized by their genders, which would
seem to indicate that the more human a characters is, the more strongly
gender affects it, but consider the Dwarves; Perhaps the most human of the
lot, gender is a completely closed subject, never brought up except in the
de facto use of the masculine gender. Is Pratchetts' solution to this so
damaging?

As a last example (and a rather poorer one as I have not read any of
Tolkien's work past TH and LOTR) look at Tom Bombadil and his wife (whose
name escapes me): from my viewpoint and interpretation of the story, they
are both elemental forces (literally), and thus not necesarily male and
female in any normal sense of the words. The shape they have is only a
reflection of the shape people have come to think they should have. The
application of gender might indeed hinder understanding of their actual
roles and attitudes.

-- 
Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com)

