Calling all women

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I can't help but state complete contempt of the idea of any books being only for a certain age group. Look at our very own Barrowdowns: The Lord of the Rings has attracted loving fans from early teens to who knows how old (though certainly none of our belovèd ladies are older than say... 29?).

[Formendacil]

I be not a lady, let that be made quite clear!

But I have a humble little thought to offer:

Perhaps the author writes about what he knows.

It is foolishness to stray in writing from things that you are not familiar with. This tends to present a clearly fake picture, which is worse than an incomplete one.

Now we know that Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Middle-Earth, mythology in general, and storytelling for his children were all points of strong knowledge for Tolkien. In writing a relatively simple story for his sons, why stray any farther than that? We know that Tolkien did not spend a great deal of time in the company of women, so it would seem logical to assume that he was no expert on the subject of the other gender.

Well, that little idea may or may not explain why there are women in The Hobbit, but it opens up the question of: if Tolkien knew so little about women in general, then how come the few that he did do often seem so convincing? Surely they aren't ALL based on his mother or Edith!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

One quick intervention that is sure to drag the thread off topic but, perhaps, into other interesting areas...

There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly -- The Hobbit, for example, was not written by Christopher Tolkien, nor even really for Christopher Tolkien, but for the Christopher Tolkien as imagined by John Ronald Ruel. Now, who among us will be so foolish as to claim that our parents understand us perfectly?

And it's interesting to me to see how often in this thread we see people -- a many of them women -- revealing that their first exposure to TH was from a parent reading it to her! So, a book written by an adult is selected by another adult for presentation to a child -- that's a lot of layers and editing to get through -- too many to start making bold claims about TH as something that children should or do respond to.

And Fea is right making distinctions between age groups in terms of reading is wrong and even misleading -- the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

All of which is a long way round of saying that Saucy is right: the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys. Not just that it's not about girls, but that it's about boys. What's interesting to me is to see how the women in this thread who like TH don't see it that way at all -- it's not about boys, but about people, or adventure, or Fairy Tale...

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

*Fordim begins to seriously consider making his students register to the Downs and participate in this thread*

[Shelob]

the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys.

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...

This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again.

And in all honesty I'm not sure how I feel about this one... sure when I was really little (little enough that I now can't remember it) I probably enjoyed hearing the same thing over and over, but at about the point where I begin to remember things I always wanted to hear something new. That's my first recollection of The Hobbit actually, going up to my dad when he was reading it and asking "what's that?", "what's it about?" and a whole string of questions ending with "read it to me". Since I had no earlier memory of it the book was something completely new and therefore worth hearing, and after he finished reading it to me that time he mentioned that there was a series of books which came after it (LOTR) so I made him read those to me. I was maybe 6 at that point, I got scared well before the end but I'd wanted to hear them because they were something new. I guess I could have said that shortly by saying that I think by the time kids are old enough to be really interested in books like The Hobbit they're also probably into the stage where they're looking for something new, which is probably why so many books for that age group are adventure style stories...

As for your lists of questions, I guess it depends on how you're looking at it.
To use the last question, "is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?", as an example. Children probably don't notice, the general consensus here is that when we were 5 or 7 or what have you it didn't matter that The Hobbit had no girls. Now though, it might. If I were reading of Bilbo's adventures for the first time this year it may really irk me that there are no girls in the book.


EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Shelob

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...

Well, the story is all about Max's imagined reaction to his mother's having called him "Wild thing" and sending him to bed without supper; and it ends with him returning to his real life and finding that his mother has forgiven him by sending up his dinner. And there are many of the Wild Things with distinctly "feminine" hair and, I would suggest, bearings.

EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

This really is more common among younger children, but it's that game of anticipating the next page and/or the next illustration. As the book becomes more familiar children begin to anticipate with joy their favourite moments or events and to race ahead. Children who cannot yet read say aloud the story or point to pictures when asked by the parent to find the mouse, say. It becomes familiar territory....

...kind of like a hobbit hole, to drag myself back to something Middle-Earth related (lest I be Barrow Wighted )

[tar-ancalime]

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

Well, the trouble is not with the book. The trouble is that your students are missing the point. In my first post I perhaps dwelled too long on the reasons why thse books might be off-putting at first to the young women in your class. However, as others have so rightly added, it is not the book's job to be all things to all people.

I think you need to present TH book as a book about boys. About men. Present that as a positive thing! After all, half of the children your students will be teaching (I assume these are elementary-ed majors) will be boys, and the other half will have to understand boys on at least a superficial level.

In the end it's your students' responsibility to be open-minded enough to be able to appreciate works of literature that might not be immediately appealing to them. Barring that, it's absolutely their responsibility to articulate some better criticisms than "its' a bad book" or "it's a boy's story." (Because, as you've so rightly pointed out, the fact that it's a story about boys isn't really a problem at all, as long as boys' stories aren't the only kind you read, which it sounds like they're not.) Maybe they didn't like TI; maybe they won't like (or didn't like in the past) TH; but they need to be able to give you something more than the vague statements they seem to have been coming out with. My cynicism is back--it's still sounding to me like they aren't doing the reading, or aren't doing it closely enough, and are grasping for something to say in class.

[Aiwendil]

At the risk of leading the thread astray . . .

Fordim wrote:

There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly

the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

There's certainly some truth in this. However, I think that the children themselves (i.e. children as children, not children as adults conceptualize them) also play a very important role here. I imagine that the children's literature that survives and becomes "classic" reflects something of a compromise between the tastes of children and the tastes of adults (as opposed to reflecting simply the adults' view of children).

It would be a mistake to assume that children have little or no power of discernment. We must consider not only the tendency for adults to choose to read The Hobbit to children but also the tendency for children to enjoy The Hobbit. I am one of the many who had The Hobbit (and later LotR) read to me when I was young and I recall that, even then, I enjoyed it far more than most other books I was exposed to.

I'm attempting to figure out what import this has for the topic of Tolkien and women, but I'm afraid I'm at a loss.

[Firefoot]

I've been following this thread with interest but haven't yet posted. So here's my thoughts:

First of all, my first introduction to the Hobbit was from a friend at school; I was twelve or thirteen years old and I would say that I didn't have a lot of experience in the sci-fi/fantasy genre in particular - it was more like whatever I picked up off the shelf at the library. So anyway, I started to read this book really having no clear idea of what it was about - I'm not sure I even realized until I started reading it that it was fantasy. But from the first few pages of the book, I was enchanted/delighted/absolutely hooked. It was one of the few books I have ever talked to my mom about - as in, this book is absolutely amazing and I love it. To my surprise, my mom actually recognized the book. Apparently my uncle had really liked it back when they were kids, though my mom had tried it and it had turned her off - she hadn't finished it. I don't think the conversation went any further - I think I went back to reading.

I would say that there were a couple things that pulled me in. First and foremost is the plot - somebody else already mentioned it, but I can't find who at the moment. TH has a fantastic plot, going from one adventure to the next. I had afterward heard people say that the ending got dull, but this was something I never found. The book's tone draws you in, but the plot keeps you going. There's always a "what happens next?" The other contributing factor is its tone and gentle humor. I was not young as many of you were young when you read the book; I was in jr. high, and whether because of or in spite of this, the way the book was written delighted me - still does, actually. I did not know that it was supposed to be a children's book (as I said before, I knew very little about it), though I was able to recognize later that it was a simpler book. It's beautifully light-hearted to read without being childish. As Fea said, it's a rainy day sort of book, a book to relax with.

As for it being a "boy's book" - this never occurred to me. In fact, it never really occurred to me that all the characters in the book are male in the same way that it never occurred to me that all of the Winnie the Pooh characters are male (except for Kanga) before my high school baby sitter noticed it when we were watching it on TV. And just like this did not take away from my enjoyment of Winnie the Pooh, it does not bother me in the least that there are no female characters in TH. It doesn't need them; that is not the point of the book. It's the same reason why I get irritated when fan fic writers try to put female characters in the Fellowship. It doesn't work. I enjoy strong female characters and have read and enjoyed many books - but only where they work (i.e., Anne of Green Gables, Pride and Prejudice, etc... and not just classics, either - there are adventure/fantasy stories that can feature strong female characters - take the Chronicles of Narnia. In fact, I wonder if it wasn't for the presence of the female children in those books if they wouldn't be classified as "boys' books" as well ). I actually find myself getting annoyed when books try to force female characters in where they really aren't needed - they're meant to be strong, but they get annoying as the author tries to make their achievements match the males'. Strong female characters only work where they fit - and in TH isn't one of those places.

What makes a book a "boys' book" or a "girls' book," anyway? My youth group was talking about various fantasy books one time and my youth leader made the comment that he was surprised that I (and my cousin, for that matter) had enjoyed Hitch-hiker's Guide so much as he had considered it more "guy's humor." This rather surprised me, having enjoyed the book myself as well as known several female Downers who had enjoyed the books. And if all or mostly male characters make a book a "boys book," well then, I guess many of my favorite books growing up have been "boys' books" - White Fang by Jack London has no major female characters; Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, as someone has already mentioned, both have few female characters. This has never bothered me. I don't think that lines can be drawn that way - boys books and girls books. Certain books may be more appealing to one gender or the other in general, but lines are better drawn in terms of personality and interests.

Bearing Fordim's latest post in mind, though, if you were to look at the Hobbit as a "boys' story." Hm... I guess I don't see the point, since that isn't the point. Essentially, it's meant to be a fairy tale, and I still find it very odd that so many of the women in your class would classify it as a boy's story, and as they do, why that makes it a bad book. It's one thing to classify the story as a boy's book; I can at least see the reasoning to that. But to classify it as a bad book because of that doesn't make sense to me. I would find out if they feel similarly about other books they would call boys books, and how they make that conclusion. There are very very few books that I have ever read that I would call bad. I have been too bored to finish many, or find that I do not care for the topic or genre, but that does not mean those books are bad.

[Lalaith]

This discussion has inspired me to pick up the Hobbit again, and the more I think about it, I just can't see the Hobbit as "a boy's story". It is a very un-macho book.
The tone, for example. It is gentle and discursive, and Bilbo's love of cosy home comforts is constantly being referred to. Practical domestic things - the problem of drying wet clothes, for example - are considered. Bilbo himself is an entirely unmacho character, he rarely uses physical force - only words and guile.
In fact, I think that the reason I liked the book so much when I was little is that I identified with Bilbo. He could be you, because he feels the way a child - of either gender - might feel on an adventure, frightened but excited. He wants to go home a lot of the time, he needs looking after by the others. Tolkien constantly refers to him as "poor little Bilbo", the way you might talk about a child.

PS I dig Formendacil's thesis: that Tolkien was quite comfortable in the world of dragons, dwarves and trolls but human women were a completely alien species....

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, this discussion really makes me look forward to the Hobbit CbC discussion that I will be initiating early in the new year! I hope all of you will join in, so that we can share our ideas.

By the way, I'd like to add one more thought from the viewpoint of a mother (which is similar and applicable to teachers) - I hope parents still read to their children and don't depend entirely on recordings and TV for their discovery of story. If so, it just might be a good idea to know which books could appeal to sons as well as to daughters; I have one each, and a lot of our reading sessions were to both simultaneously. That means finding books that appeal to both genders and different ages!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I have always been of the opinion that if a story is good and enjoyable and you keep coming back to it for that enjoyment, weather the characters are male or female is irrelevant. The Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth history is, in my opinion, a fantastic story, its something I can't stop reading once I get started. To simply throw it away on the grounds that there aren’t enough of one sex or one group is madness!

I have never been a fan of Jane Austin, which annoyed my English teacher at High school. When I read Pride and prejudice and said, "I didn't enjoy the story. Not a lot really happened." she replied, "The story doesn’t matter!" I was quite taken back by this. Obviously, she is entitled to her opinion, but it seems that the story would be the most important part!
Later on in the year I asked this English teacher what she thought of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. Again, she seemed to disregard the story as an irrelevance, saying, "It's all male. How can I read something like that?" So I asked, "Don't you enjoy a good story?" and she said, "why? Its not the story that matters, its what the author is trying to say."
Well, in my opinion, what the author is trying to say is only a small part of a book. Without a good story, how can the meaning be seen without eye rolling? I think I once wrote a story to annoy this teacher, it went something like this.

"Once upon a time there was a woman named Jim who was fed up of political oppression and so shot her husband and went to downing street and married the prime minister and went on to rule the world."

Immature, I know. But I was trying to make a point. You can argue till your blue in the face about what an author meant by something, but first and foremost should be a good story.
That’s how I always saw it anyway.
Any thoughts?

[Lalwendë]

I agree that the story is the most important factor in any book. Yet maybe Fordim's female students don't even relate to the story? The Hobbit is primarily an adventure story, and many of those which have been published do seem geared towards men and do centre around male characters. As shown on this thread, some female readers do find they connect more easily to a book which features female characters.

But as I've already pointed out, not all women need that connection. I've been thinking of which books I have read which might be said to relate exclusively to men. American Psycho is about a man, and though it does have female characters these are used by the male character to define himself and his propensity for extreme violence; it is not always a comfortable read for a woman as women are objects in this book, to be collected like his designer goods.

Yet I was not alienated by this; is it because women also have a capacity for violence, or is it that I sought some kind of secret knowledge about men from the book? I've also read a fair few books by men about 'thugs' which I've found fascinating; I am no thug nor do I have even the slightest liking for them, so there has been little to 'relate to' in such books. But I did want to get an insight into what goes through the minds of such people. I'm sure there are as many men who do not want to know such things as there are women who do not. Why are these 'books for men' if they are simply about society?

I was talking yesterday about Rogue Male, which I read for O Level. This could be said to be a traditional male book in every way as it is about an assassin, a former hunter, who goes into hiding. It does not feature any women as far as I can remember. But I enjoyed it, and many women are avid readers of thrillers of all kinds. Obviously here the element of story is vital. Again, I know of several women who are enormous fans of Patrick O'Brien's novels (Master & Commander was based on these) despite them being about naval warfare. So adventure is clearly also important to women readers.

There are even films which on the surface look like men's films, e.g. Top Gun, with the bit of romance added in to please wives and girlfriends of men wanting to watch the film; am I the only woman who'd fast forward all the soppy bits to get to the shots of the jet fighters? It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst? I don't care about that, I just want to see the car chase.

So what I'm getting at is in this day and age, there possibly isn't much substance in saying something is a book 'for boys'. Girls aren't restricted to maintaining an appearance of being 'girly' any longer and have a wider opportunity of experience so they are more likely to accept or even relate to a male character.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst?

It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

Funnily enough, Jackson's initial instinct (no doubt in line with this trend) was to have Arwen as a much more active character. Yet the reaction of fans prompted him (guided, I believe, by Liv Tyler) to give her a much more passive role in the final cut.

[Bêthberry]

One area that has not been guided by purchasing power or market research is the experience of high school teachers, who report a very interesting finding.

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters. Interesting, no? And, to keep this on topic, Tolkien's letter to his son Michael, Letter # 43, presents Tolkien's ideas concerning the relation of the sexes.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

There are still not that many 'Ripley' figures about though, and when there is a strong female character then she is notable, which suggests that it is still not necessarily the norm for such characters. I do have to say that having a strong and unique female lead attracted me in to the cinema to watch Kill Bill, as I'd not been all that interested in Tarantino films before; I loved the idea that she was a mother and an assassin.

It has often crossed my mind whether Jackson made Arwen more strong as a character purely to appeal to the female audience who might not respond to someone who spent their time weaving - the subtleties of the significance of weaving is one of those ideas that just would not have transferred to film! The odd thing about the films is that even though they did give Arwen an active role, it is still a film which has very few female roles, like the books. This does not seem to have kept women and girls away from the cinemas; in fact I seem to notice even more female fans of Tolkien than ever before! It has to be something deeper than the Legolas effect.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters.

Possibly it has to do with the youth of the writer - young men do tend to write more about being a young man, not having that much experience of women! While young women tend to write about idealised men/boys when they create a male character. That's just from my experience of teaching writing.

That could be a very interesting topic for a teacher/tutor - how well does Tolkien write from a female point of view? Not much use for examining The Hobbit, but if Fordim decides to teach LotR he has a ready made topic with a gender slant.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Possibly it has to do with the youth of the writer - young men do tend to write more about being a young man, not having that much experience of women! While young women tend to write about idealised men/boys when they create a male character. That's just from my experience of teaching writing.

That could be a very interesting topic for a teacher/tutor - how well does Tolkien write from a female point of view? Not much use for examining The Hobbit, but if Fordim decides to teach LotR he has a ready made topic with a gender slant.

That's a fascinating observation, Lal, for it suggests that male students write merely out of 'historical accuracy' while female students are the truly creative writers.

On the other hand, and not to disparage your experience (I wasn't aware you are a teacher, Lal, or had taught at any rate), the research and the writing I have seen does not suggest that female students write "idealised men/boys" with they write from a male POV (at least in North America). Far from it.

It is still the case that most literature students see is literature which foregrounds male protagonists. Thus female students read more about male characters than male students read about female characters. And it is still very challenging for teachers to get male students to read literature with female protagonists. Thus, there is still the norm or ethos that the important stories and the most privileged forms of literature deal with male POV.

I still think that a classroom of bright female students, when given a syllabus such as Professor Hedgethistle has apparently organised, will at some point decide to have a bit of sport with the curriculum. Unless of course our esteemed BarrowDowns "pullster" is indeed pulling our legs.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I seem to notice even more female fans of Tolkien than ever before! It has to be something deeper than the Legolas effect.

Nah. We were recently discussing Tolkien's work in my comp class in comparison to The Saga of the Volsungs. My class has perhaps ten girls and five or six guys in it. Only one guy was in class this day (not counting the head of the writing department who was sitting in that morning), so my unofficial stats are based entirely on girls.

Two students had read the LotR. Only I had read the Silm (though the head of the department enthusiastically raised his hand when I jokingly asked that question to my classmates). Maybe six of us had seen the movies, and five of those six had been lured there by Orlando Bloom (or, in one case, peer pressure to see... Orlando Bloom).

If the girls in my dorm get to talking about movies, we can talk at length about the artistic merit of Finding Neverland. We can discuss the historical importance of Schindler's List. We can go on about the incredible animation of Finding Nemo, or the books that The Princess Diaries movies are based on. One mention of The Lord of the Rings and you will hear a widespread sigh over how gorgeous Orlando Bloom is. "But the story..." I say. "Who cares?" they respond. "Orlando Bloom is hot."

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Of course, but it would be nice if there were girls doing the driving for a change, rather than squealing in the backseat

True. As long as they have well-developed characters that don't rely alone on "she's a female kicking butt". My favorite girl-power movie's got to be Mulan. I mean... she's got character development, the plot is good, she works really hard, almost fails, and then KABANG! she succeeds and all of China is bowing to her. Mulan rocks. And that Lee Chang... No, seriously though, I agree totally with Lalaith that more movies and books need female leads. They just need to be strong leads that don't rely on gender alone to captivate an audience. Eowyn is an excellent character, though not really a lead, because you actually feel for her. You see her grow and change, becoming a strong, independent woman, instead of a care-taker niece. She knows what is important to her, is willing to give her life for it, and she succeeds and lives happily ever after. Go Eowyn.

I said my next comment once already, though I'll say it again: if women are so upset by the distinct lack of women in literature, they should go out and fix the problem. Do we really expect it to suddenly fix itself? Are we going to sit back and demand that men write books about women? After we sit around and laugh about how men are so clueless about us? Yeah right. Professor Hedgethistle, if your ladies are so upset by the lack of girl books, challenge them to go write their own. Every good female author of good female adventure stories I've come across has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "I write what I want to read."