What are you reading now?

[smittims]

If you think American writers are too wordy you might try William Carlos Williams

[DracoM]

Susan Hill - novel starring her central detective character Simon Serrailler

[Petrushka]

If you think American writers are too wordy you might try William Carlos Williams

I mostly avoid American writers, though F. Scott Fitzgerald and some Hemingway are exceptions. There's just too much to read and lines have to be drawn somewhere.

[smittims]

Come now, Petrushka! Hawthorne and Wharton (do you count James as American? ) are noticeably more concise than Dickens and Thackeray (fine though they are ).

[LMcD]

Susan Hill - novel starring her central detective character Simon Serrailler

I'm currently working my way through the excellent Simon Serraiiler books - next up is 'Hero'

[Ian Thumwood]

I have read quite a few American writers but The Great Circle was too pleased with itself. I quite enjoyed the recent Underground Railroad even if the first quarter of the book was a struggle. The last 75 per cent was pretty good.

Like Petrushka, I have made a conscious effort to avoid American books. Gatsby struck me as over rated but it is writers trying to be too hip that frustrate me. Trashy stuff like Tom Clancy is another style I avoid. If I am.reading English books, I feel author's from UK are more nuanced and the writing is wittier. Some writers are irritating such ax Rose Tremaine but I would say that Anerican novelists are likely to be the ones I fund the most annoying.

I would add that I do like non English writers and have recently really enjoyed the Argentine writer Claudia Pineiro. The writer Jose Rizal also made an impression on me as have a host of French writers in the past.

I do wonder what American readers would make of some British authors. I think a writer like James Herriot would be a challenge because of the writing in dialect. It would be perplexing if you did not appreciate the world he described. Can't see Kate Atkinson appealing over the pond either as her use of dialogue is infused with a very British sense of humour and is often quite cynical. I think British writers like to allude to things whereas American writers are less subtle.

I would also say I have no issue with reading books by female authors whatsoever. I like a female perspective

[LMcD]

I have read quite a few American writers but The Great Circle was too pleased with itself. I quite enjoyed the recent Underground Railroad even if the first quarter of the book was a struggle. The last 75 per cent was pretty good.

Like Petrushka, I have made a conscious effort to avoid American books. Gatsby struck me as over rated but it is writers trying to be too hip that frustrate me. Trashy stuff like Tom Clancy is another style I avoid. If I am.reading English books, I feel author's from UK are more nuanced and the writing is wittier. Some writers are irritating such ax Rose Tremaine but I would say that Anerican novelists are likely to be the ones I fund the most annoying.

I would add that I do like non English writers and have recently really enjoyed the Argentine writer Claudia Pineiro. The writer Jose Rizal also made an impression on me as have a host of French writers in the past.

I do wonder what American readers would make of some British authors. I think a writer like James Herriot would be a challenge because of the writing in dialect. It would be perplexing if you did not appreciate the world he described. Can't see Kate Atkinson appealing over the pond either as her use of dialogue is infused with a very British sense of humour and is often quite cynical. I think British writers like to allude to things whereas American writers are less subtle.

I would also say I have no issue with reading books by female authors whatsoever. I like a female perspective

My favourite authors include the following North Americans:
Margaret Atwood
Fannie Flagg
Barbara Kingsolver
Alison Lurie
Alison Munro
Ann Pratchett
Carol Shields
Anne Tyler

At the moment, I'm reading Graham Norton's 'Home Stretch'.

[smittims]

I was interested in Ian's remark about books by female writers. Naturally these vary enormously from author to author, and I wouldn't want to draw a generalisation any more than with male authors. However ,there has been in recent years a development which I dislike.

Many new novels are written by women specifically for women to read, on the sound commercial basis that women buy a lot of new novels to read by themselves. While it's natural to make these books appealing to women, the 'new feminism' has led in some cases to what strikes me as very anti-male sexism: books which give a very false view of the world and the relationships between men and women. Typically, all the strong enduring characters are women, all the men are ineffective, whinging wimps or selfish deceivers. While this may be put forward as encouraging or 'empowering' female readers , I think it actually exploits them by feeding them a lie they will swallow eagerly.

The finest female novelists have always written well for both male and female readers: George Sand, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf , and I would add a personal favourite, Pamela Hansford Johnson. .

[Pianorak]

I would recommend this American novel by John Williams: "Stoner".

[french frank]

Many new novels are written by women specifically for women to read, on the sound commercial basis that women buy a lot of new novels to read by themselves. While it's natural to make these books appealing to women, the 'new feminism' has led in some cases to what strikes me as very anti-male sexism: books which give a very false view of the world and the relationships between men and women.

Can you give examples of the ones you've read to which this applies? When you say 'a very false view', could it simply be that the reality of women's experiences of the world, the domestic world, the world of work, the world of relationships &c, is very different from men's experiences? If you like, they're just a counter to novels of high adventure, the world of spies, war and other ripping yarns of the imagination which men enjoy vicariously.

[LMcD]

I was interested in Ian's remark about books by female writers. Naturally these vary enormously from author to author, and I wouldn't want to draw a generalisation any more than with male authors. However ,there has been in recent years a development which I dislike.

Many new novels are written by women specifically for women to read, on the sound commercial basis that women buy a lot of new novels to read by themselves. While it's natural to make these books appealing to women, the 'new feminism' has led in some cases to what strikes me as very anti-male sexism: books which give a very false view of the world and the relationships between men and women. Typically, all the strong enduring characters are women, all the men are ineffective, whinging wimps or selfish deceivers. While this may be put forward as encouraging or 'empowering' female readers , I think it actually exploits them by feeding them a lie they will swallow eagerly.

The finest female novelists have always written well for both male and female readers: George Sand, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf , and I would add a personal favourite, Pamela Hansford Johnson. .

I don't think that well-known feminist Val McDermid writes with a largely or exclusive female readership in mind, and I'm sure Susan Hill's Simon Serrailler is of equal interest to, and equally convincing for, both genders.

[french frank]

I don't think that well-known feminist Val McDermid writes with a largely or exclusive female readership in mind, and I'm sure Susan Hill's Simon Serrailler is of equal interest to, and equally convincing for, both genders.

I suppose feminism, in as far as it was an attempt to adjust an imbalance (though I doubt everyone would even agree that there was any such need) is like a pendulum bound to pass beyond the point of balance. And sometimes situations need the additional force, the louder voices, the overdoing or exaggerating in order to bring about changes. But a critical focus on the overdoing rather than correcting seems more of an admission that one prefers the status quo or fails to see any need for change anyway. smittims might appreciate Doris Lessing.

[Historian]

I suppose feminism, in as far as it was an attempt to adjust an imbalance (though I doubt everyone would even agree that there was any such need) is like a pendulum bound to pass beyond the point of balance. And sometimes situations need the additional force, the louder voices, the overdoing or exaggerating in order to bring about changes. But a critical focus on the overdoing rather than correcting seems more of an admission that one prefers the status quo or fails to see any need for change anyway. smittims might appreciate Doris Lessing.

Men have had mostly their own way in most societies for thousands of years (sorry for the clumsy wording but I seek to avoid the use of exceptions to this as the basis for a more general opposition). That is slowly changing but the process still has quite a long way to go.I regard myself (now, not so much when I was younger) as relatively supportive of women and girls but much of what they go through on a daily basis is unknown to me. This is part of the problem as it means that I sometimes fail to agree that much correction is still needed.I hope that makes sense and this post should, perhaps, be in a different thread. Do we have one on feminism?

I have no real suggestions as to what to read, however surely anyone reading much history or fiction from the past (by male as well as female authors) should be able to see that although progress has been made much still remains to be done, even n this country which is probably rather less misogynistic than many others. I have read many books written by women which 'speak' to me, even if do not always agree with the authors' point of view.

[smittims]

Hi, Historian , I tried to start a discussion about feminism but it was quashed. It seems that like talking religion or poitics in the officers' mess, it's taboo. I make no complaint.

I'd say some men have had their own way for thousands of years; so have some women. other men (and women) have definitely not had their own way . If you are (or were) a neglected composer it seems more likely your music will be broadcast on Radio 3 if you're a woman.

Examples of the novels I've read which give the impression I mentioned would include Elizabeth Jane Howard,Penelope Mortimer, Salley Vickers, Carla Lane, Kate Sharam and whoever wrote 'Felicia's party' (sorry, couldn't find a name) . Yes, I know one can dismiss a lot of these by saying ' well,that's just chick-lit: no-one takes it seriously'; but some of them are best-sellers and are devoured by thousands of women. I feel after reading a few chapters of some of these that the writer clearly hates men but is possible or probably unaware of that. I think all artists cannot help revealing their inner selves subconsciously.

[french frank]

Hi, Historian , I tried to start a discussion about feminism but it was quashed. It seems that like talking religion or poitics in the officers' mess, it's taboo. I make no complaint.

There's no taboo on such discussion, It's just that such topics tend not to progress beyond Mitchell and Webb's "Send in your reckons". They are expressions of opinion (unlikely to change). That isn't my concept of a useful discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y

Examples of the novels I've read which give the impression I mentioned would include Elizabeth Jane Howard,Penelope Mortimer, Salley Vickers, Carla Lane, Kate Sharam and whoever wrote 'Felicia's party' (sorry, couldn't find a name) . Yes, I know one can dismiss a lot of these by saying ' well,that's just chick-lit: no-one takes it seriously'; but some of them are best-sellers and are devoured by thousands of women. I feel after reading a few chapters of some of these that the writer clearly hates men but is possible or probably unaware of that.

For reasons of your own you appear to have selected these particular authors and chosen to read them (I haven't). I'm sure there are, I quite agree with you, women writers who 'hate men' or bear a grudge, but there again it could be that they 'hate men' on account of their own repeated experiences: that is, it represents a reality which many women share. Just as there could be Black people who 'hate white people' because of their experiences. If there are fewer men who write of their hatred for women or other minorities there could be a social explanation: that they sit at the top of the heap. Empathy involves understanding these differing points of view. Don't you think so?