Martin I read and enjoy 'boy books'- by writers such as Lee Child, Vince Flynn, Thomas Cook, John Connolly,Harlan Coben, Nelson DeMille, Dennis LeHane and Daniel Silva to name just a few of my favorite male authors.

They all have strong male characters, some of them are returning 'heroes' in each book, some are stand-alones, but they are to me-good gripping stories. Is this the sort of thing you meant?

Of course I read female authors too, but not nearly as many.

Pat

I like most of John LeCarre and especially the George Smiley books.

I haven't read all your authors, Pat, but I don't think I'd call Coben or Cook or Silva boy book writers. I think they have an appeal to everyone who enjoys mysteries.

Martin, are you thinking more of sports or male adventure type books?

Martin, at one time I mostly read "boy books" such as those by Alistair MacLean and Robert Ludlum. Maybe they wouldn't be classified as excellent but they certainly were enjoyable. The spy/thriller books, including The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, were my preferred reading and I still enjoy that general type of books more than any other fiction. I like many of the authors Pat listed, also. Since I've been on RP my reading range has expanded and I've added more "girl books" to my TBR room.

For the past few days I have been listening to George Eliot's Middlemarch and have been thinking about something along these same lines. The author wrote under a male name for various reasons but to me the book is very much a "girl book". I find it difficult to believe that readers would have thought it to be written by a male. I need to do some research and learn more about George Eliot and how her books were received and whether it was believed then that she was a male author.

Carolyn - I think the problem is that I can't think of non-genre books which are nonetheless intended for men.

Actually, that's not true. I've just thought of one writer who definitely writes "boy books" - Nick Hornby. Fever Pitch was his first book, which is non-fiction - the story of his life as a football (soccer) fan. And his first novel High Fidelity is about an equally obsessed music fan. I don't know how much they would appeal to women, but I loved them. (Didn't like About a Boy or A Long Way Down, mind.)

I haven't read most of the writers you are referring to, Pat - but I accept your point. I know Ludlum and McLean, though. To me, those are the male-writer equivalent of "chick-lit" - the sort of books that women read on the beach, which don't require too much thought, and which most men (including me) wouldn't touch with a barge-pole. (Maybe I'm missing something!)

Let's go a bit further. I think no-one would deny that Margaret Atwood is a top-class writer, by any standards. Her books are not only good reads and they sell well, but they are also critically acclaimed. For what it's worth, she's won the Booker Prize once and been shortlisted a further three or four times. But I think it's also fair to describe her, as I did, as a writer of "girl books". (Or should we these days refer to it as feminist literature?)

Are there any top-class writers who write for men? (What's the opposite of feminist anyway?)

Frances - I haven't read Middlemarch, but I understand your point. It comes as a surprise to me that anyone would think that Jane Eyre could have been written by a man. There are writers who can pull off this trick (Ishiguro springs to mind) but they are quite rare.

Trying to think of men who write 'quality' literature with a male readership in mind . . . and it is not easy.
Asked the DH and from behind the newspaper he said "Men don't read story books" although after some thought he said he had enjoyed H G Wells. How about Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Peter Ackroyd or Patrick O'Brien or as Martin suggested stuff by le Carre?

I wonder - how about George Orwell? It's certainly true that his heroes tend to be male, and the stories tend to be from the male perspective; even the female characters tend to be only foils to the male characters. Can we call his books "boy books"?

Let's look at it another way - if the books had been written about similar people but from the perspective of a woman, they'd certainly be "girl books".

Being more general here, I wonder if the point is that in the past, most books tended to be "boy books" as most authors tended to be male. Given that, most women who wanted to read were forced to read "boy books" simply because that was pretty well all that was available - to the extent that we don't realize that most books are boy books; it's just that women read them. But "girl books" are rarer - and hence we notice it.

(Hmmm...this is getting dangerously close to an understanding of why it is that there is "feminist literature", but no equivalent for the male of the species....my daughters would be proud of me!)

No, Martin. Not George Orwell and not John Le Carre. Their themes are universal and I am a major fan of both. The only books I could possibly think of as "boy" writing would not qualify as literature--maybe "pulp" adventure novels. Tho for all I know there are women fans of those too (but not me).

I suggest Philip Roth as 'boy book' author; what books of his I've read are very much from a masculine perspective. And I would answer Middlemarch with Portrait of a Lady by Henry James. Of course, another writer called James 'a fussy old lady' so that might not qualify.

Science Fiction in the 50's and 60's tended to be male oriented but I did read some because my husband had a collection of them. I found some of them interesting and amusing, although a critic who wrote that spaceships in that era seemed to be staffed by dogs as the characters were always barking or growling orders!
My husband liked books by Janet Evanovitch, Sue Grafton etc. which is my answer to your original train of thought, Martin, as to which girl books could be read by men.

I wonder at this need to label any book 'boy' or 'girl', aside from marketing. There's no question that certain books are marketed at certain genders, but I can't think of too many that can't be unisex. I have loved Orwell and many sci fi writers, and my husband is a fan of Jane Austen. Most books, even the ones with pepto bismol pink covers, have themes that guys would appreciate (esp books like Snobs).

I have the same problem with kids books - when someone wants 'recommendations for a boy', my instinct is to pick a book that is considered a 'girl' book, but one that a boy would certainly enjoy. Yeah, I guess thats the feminist in me. Proud to be one, actually

Its that kind of thing that perpetuates stereotypes, and that keeps some people from reading books that they probably would love. Really a shame.

I also realize that I am in a minority. Other people don't seem to have trouble with gender specific marketing. Even 'boy' toys made for girls are pink (check out the Barbie Legos) - yet last time I looked my preschool girls had just as much fun playing with the primary colored ones as boys.

Its not just gender: I also have a hard time with some of the labels in stores - Afro American lit and Gay Lit are two that are just glaring examples. Many readers will check out the general literature shelves, with some wonderful books being missed becouse they are compartmentalized (Sarah Waters is a good example)

I could come up with a number of books that I think were written by men, for men, but they lacked the "quality" literature label.
In November I did read "quality" literature which I thought could be put under our "boy lit" category. The book was Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee. Now, I haven't read anything else by Coetzee but while I was reading this I thought he was a very good writer. My problem was with the subject matter - I didn't like the male protagonist and had no sympathy with his juvenile male menopause problems. I skimmed through the latter part of the book just for closure. Maybe a male reader would be appreciative but I thought this was "boy lit" and the only response I had was an overwhelming urge to mentally kick the university prof in the backside. (I am being polite.)

So that's my nomination. ;-)

Martin, I think you are using slightly different yardsticks for measuring 'girl' books and 'boy' books. You are in good company; this has been going on for a very long time. The problem is quite simply that general men's issues are universal issues, and of interest to women too, whereas even general women's issues are women's issues only and of no interest to men.

This starts early: apparently boys are very reluctant to read books with a girl as the central character, whereas girls are quite happy to read about boys. Hence Harry Potter; JK would have forfeited half her readership if she'd written about Harriet.

I think you are comparing top quality women's writing with men's genre books (but I may have misunderstood!)

Here's a question for the girls - Ernest Hemingway strikes me as a man's writer in the literature camp. Does he appeal to women? I like his short stories - a lot.

Anyanka - it's not quite that. What I'm saying is there seems to be top quality women's writing, but not top quality men's writing.

Why on earth are men's themes universal, but women's themes only of interest to women? Again, is this a hangover from the days when a woman reading at all was considered to be something remarkable?

Ginny - I actually agree about Orwell - but the point I'm making is if the books were written about the same class of people at the same time, but written about women, they'd DEFINITELY be considered to be women's literature - even though the themes are universal...

Le Carre I don't like enough to argue one way or the another.

Ernest Hemingway - yes, definitely writes boy books!

>whereas even general women's issues are women's issues only and of no interest to men.

Huh? This totally baffles me. I agree that often boys won't read 'girl' books. But 'women's issues', if they could be defined as family and community, love and relationships, are definitely of interest to men, or at least should be. This is why I bristle at the very idea of boy and girl books. When we label books like this we perpetuate the stereotype of what interests women and men alone, which is then why boys won't read 'girl books'

I don't think I made myself clear. (It's Monday...) What I'm trying to say is that if, say, Atwood's books had male characters they would be considered to be general literature. Ian McEwan deals with similar themes to Atwood, for example, but is not seen to be 'gendered' at all. Top quality men's writing is just called literature, and women read it too. What is perceived as 'men's writing' is the equivalent of 'chick lit' in quality, in my opinion.

I can tell I'm still clear as mud though... should have had that second cup of coffee...

I agree, Hemingway definitely wrote "boy books." Janalyn, I had the same reaction to Disgrace, but Russ told me I'd probably like his other work. I dont know because I've never been the least tempted. Perhaps it is the "guy book" thing, but there are other "guy books" I love.

Joseph Conrad, for example, and Alexandre Dumas. Of more recent vintage is Motherless Brooklyn by Jonathan Lethem. I'm thinking I'd classify Larry McMurtry as a "guy" writer, too, even though I know most every woman on this forum loves him and thinks he writes great women. He writes from a perspective that is entirely that of a man who loves women, but definitely of a man.

John Fowles The Magus is a book I hate with a passion. It causes me to rant, to yell, to deny the brain function of any who like it. Yet I must acknowledge it appears on many "best of ..." lists. The fact makes me furious. I submit it as the quintessential "boy book."

janalyn - I agree that Coetzee writes 'boy books', at least as far as I understand what a 'boy book' is. Although, unlike you, I think Coetzee is one of the most brilliant authors of this time ;-)

Martin - I also agree about Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch was too 'boy' for me, though I loved High Fidelity. I'm not so sure about Orwell, although looking at Keep the Aspidistra Flying definitely makes me think it was written by a man and for men.

Also, Hemingway definitely writes 'boy books' so much so that many women find them offensive ... or is it just Hemingway himself?

>that if, say, Atwood's books had male characters they would be considered to be general literature.

See, I consider her work literature. What I consider fluff or literature has nothing to do with author genders. It has to do with the quality of writing.

Cindy, I also consider Atwood (and many other female authors) to be just literature. I also agree that women's themes should be of interest to men. However, a large number of men still quite simply don't listen to women, don't read female authors. That's what I meant by the statement that men's issues are general issues: because women listen to men, but men don't listen to women (yes, generalising terribly, and definitely not aiming at Martin, who is a man totally at ease with the company of women, virtual, literary and otherwise!)

There used to be a regular male visitor to this forum who dismissed female authors as not worth reading, with such breathtaking confidence that I could not even begin to enter a conversation on the topic. It would have been a waste of virtual breath. Men can get away with dismissing all women writers, even though they may alienate some other men and many women in the process. Now imagine an erudite, articulate women making the sweeping statement that she doesn't read any male writers, ever. Just not going to work, is it? Because straightaway she can no longer claim to be well-educated; she has confined herself to the literary ghetto.

Oops.

Feminist rant over...

I have a friend, an English history professor, quite wellknown, so I won't name her, who reads only female writers because "men have already had their say". She is elderly so thinks she has read enough by male writers to last for the rest of her life. I didn't argue with her although I don't agree with the sentiment.

Several "boy authors" which come to mind are F.Scott Fitzgerald and Jack London. And yes, I agree about Hemingway and Roth as being male-oriented.

I don't like neat categorizations, however. I would rather ask if the writing style is transcendant and if the themes are universal. I prefer to ignore genre compartmentalizations in literature, although, I know that if one is a post-modern student, required to write papers, this is almost an impossibility.

Even though you say Atwood's books are brilliant, Martin, I think you are backhandedly belittling her (and women) by saying women who write about women aren't aiming for a male readership. I don't think anyone who writes literary fiction wants to exclude any part of their readership because it's just too small a piece of the pie to start with.

Hemingway is defintely a "boy" book author-I had to take a course on his writing in college and hated it, but I think his macho personality had an effect on his writing and he didn't think too much of women in general. Oops-hope that doesn't offend anyone.
Larry McMurty, Jack London, Zane Grey's westerns and dare I say most of Steinbeck's books are more "boy"-ie Of Mice and Men and Cannery Row. I don't know really...I do think women today read everything and don't think much about boy or girl books. I can't get my head around this subject. Maybe after I throughly wake up from my nap?

I agree with Philip Roth. What about John Updike and all those "Rabbit" books he wrote? I found I had very little sympathy for the masculine angst and navel-gazing of Roth's and Updike's characters. Saul Bellow, also, always struck me as very much a man's writer. I've sometimes had problems liking Martin Amis's writing for its masculine slant.

Hemingway's masculinity -- though I was always aware of it in his books -- never peeved me as it seems to do some women readers. I'm not sure why, except perhaps the biographies I've read of him have colored my perceptions.

Cormac McCarthy's subject matter veritably shouts MALE in most of his books (I haven't read The Road so I can't say about that one). Male readers seem to be most impressed with his writing, though women, of course, can read him with admiration. Yet women usually perceive the evil and recoil, while men are more likely to be entranced with it; for example, the Judge in Blood Meridian. That's my experience, anyway, discussing the book with female and male friends and family members.

Larry McMurtry is an interesting choice, I think, because he does write very empathically about his female characters. I recall being amazed at how he captured Lois Farrow's boredom by having her massage her aching calves as she watched television. The Last Picture Show is one of my all-time favorite novels, but I've known women readers whom it has annoyed greatly because it's about a teenage boy whose thoughts are typical of, well, a teenage boy.

>That's what I meant by the statement that men's issues are general issues: because women listen to men, but men don't listen to women (yes, generalising terribly, and definitely not aiming at Martin, who is a man totally at ease with the company of women, virtual, literary and otherwise!)

I agree on both counts, thanks for clarifying

>I don't think anyone who writes literary fiction wants to exclude any part of their readership because it's just too small a piece of the pie to start with

I agree - tho unfortunately publishers want to pigeon hole books to be marketed to a certain crowd and might pressure an author to do so as well. Which is why we have pink covered books (and btw a note to all in publishing - I refuse to buy a book with a pink or otherwise cutesy cover, just on principle)

"Even though you say Atwood's books are brilliant, Martin, I think you are backhandedly belittling her (and women) by saying women who write about women aren't aiming for a male readership. I don't think anyone who writes literary fiction wants to exclude any part of their readership because it's just too small a piece of the pie to start with."

I take you point, pagesturned, but I don't think I quite agree with you. I don't think I said that Atwood and other women aren't aiming at male readers - I said that they are aiming at female readers. There is a difference.

I think it's fair to say that, for example, Mills & Boone type romance books are specifically NOT aiming at men, rather as war books are specifically NOT aiming at women. No-one will stop me from reading Mills and Boone, but I'm likely to get some strange looks on the train if I do...! Whereas I can read The Time Traveller's Wife or Cat's Eye without attracting any attention (except perhaps approving glances from those women - and men! - who have read them!)

I think, though, that a lot of this problem (such as it is) goes right back to the original and slightly provocative question I asked right at the beginning.

"And is the lack of boy books that are nevertheless readable by girls a reflection of the limitations of the girl readers or a reflection of the lack of quality of the boy book writers?"

I think, interestingly enough, that both of these answers are wrong. I think the problem comes down to it being the limitations of many boy readers. As someone has already pointed out, a man could refuse to read any female authors, and (so long as you didn't actually admit to this bias!) still give the (quite erroneous) impression of being a well-read person. But a woman who refused to read any male authors would immediately come over as someone who can make no claim at all to be well-read.

So (again, generalizing dreadfully!) men do this and can get away with it. Women can't, so they don't.

It's an unjust world.

Pam, I agree with you on Hemingway's women -- except for his postmenopausal women. The only ones he loves non-lustily. And I do think he loves those. Maybe they are all variations of Gertrude Stein. ;D

Frieda, perhaps you have hit on why I emphatically don't like Bellow and early Roth.

Carolyn, how do you think James Lee Burke fits into this discussion? He is a genre writer, in the macho male hard boiled tradition, but Robicheaux is all about relationships. I love Burke, but after reading one of his novels is about the only time I'm tempted to pick up a romance novel -- to rebalance my chi.

It's an unjust world.Martin, which gender do you think gets the short end of the stick?

Actually, I think women readers have the advantage over men. Women can, and many do, read everything, while many male readers limit themselves, by inclination but also by pressure to conform to what is perceived as the masculine standard. Except for a few strident feminists, female readers would think it ludicrous to read nothing but women writers.

...which gender do you think gets the short end of the stick?

Frieda, what an interesting question. In my righteous outrage, it hadn't occurred to me to ask it. There are no wrong answers to that, are there? Men have the advantage of making the rules, getting away with it. Women possibly have richer lives.

Back to the authors: I put up Hemingway for discussion without much comment. He is so very male. But my favourite short story ever, The Cat in the Rain, captures the lonely longings of a woman with immense empathy and sympathy.

I'd also argue with Steinbeck being a 'male' writer; he has such warmth and empathy, cares so much for his characters - he's quite a softie, really. All the main characters happen to be male, but their predicaments are universal.

I don't consider James Lee Burke a man's writer. True, his books do contain violence, and horrible violence at that, but he strikes me as a romantic at heart. He adores his daughter and loves his several wives; he is a true friend.

It's not that I think other men are not like this, but I think of "boy books" as being harsher and not exploring deeper feelings or relationships. While I could admire the writing skill, I didn't like The Old Man and the Sea at all. Just couldn't care about catching that fish!

A boys' book that women read with appreciation is Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, I think. Also The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane (not a woman in it, as I recall) and maybe most stories with a military theme.

Chris, I'm another one who goes into a rant mode when I even think about The Magus.

I would agree that most books with a military theme would fall into the "boy" category. Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" comes to mind, although I found I liked it as required reading for a course. On the other hand, I never could get into and finish Ford Maddox Ford's "The Good Soldier."

What of Kerouac's "On the Road"? In one sense, it seemed to be the expression of the ultimate male fantasy.

On the Road is about three-in-a-bed unbridled sex? I'll have to read it !!

When it comes to classics, I am having trouble seeing where the line between "boy books" and "girl books" is drawn. Is War and Peace a boy book and Anna Karenina a girl book? Can men write girl books? (Madame Bovary might be another example). Is it about more than the protagonist's or author's gender?

jwttrans, your post made me remember James Jones' The Thin Red Line. I found it to be a boy book, all war, all men, not even a nurse in it. Whistle, also, was pretty much a man's book, unlike From Here to Eternity that did appeal to women (or was that Burt Lancaster?)

>Is it about more than the protagonist's or author's gender?

Personally I think it has more to do with the attitude of the reader, and the marketing stragies of publishers. Any other explanation or definition makes no sense to me.

Russ, I think men can write "girl books." Herman Wouk's Marjorie Morningstar is very much a girl book, I think. While I know they are not great literature, a number of Gothic suspense novels have been written by male writers under feminine pseudonyms -- I guess the thinking of the publishers was women prefer to read Gothics by what they think are women writers, which I think in the case of most female readers is bosh.

A number of female writers have written quite effectively in the traditionally male bastion of war stories. Olivia Manning's recounting of the Battle of El Alamein in The Levant Trilogy is every bit as good as any male writer's, and Pat Barker's The Regeneration Trilogy is much lauded by both male and female readers.

However, whatever the inroads female writers have made, I'm afraid that there's a certain segment of male readers who will pass over their books simply because they are females. An androgynous name, such as Barker's, has probably pulled in some unsuspecting male readers.

As for the classics you mentioned, Russ: Tolstoy's and Flaubert's books -- even when their protagonists are women -- are more likely to be read by men than Jane Austen's novels are. Anyanka has already talked above about this disinclination of boys and men. I know present male company is excepted, but it's hard to say it's untrue of male readers in general.

I have to agree with friedag; to me, Updike is the quintessential boy-book writer. Roth is a close second. I find their inability to convincingly capture and write about issues from a female perspective fascinating.

I teach 7th graders and have noticed that often the boys do not want to read books with female protagonists - no matter the gender of the author. However, the girls will read whatever. Of course, image is everything in 7th grade and the boys don't want to do anything seemingly not "masculine." Most of my boys would tune me out if I suggested they read a book that had a girl's name in the title, because that would not be "cool." A lot of reading habits develop in the early and middle years and perhaps these prejudices are built early and continue for many readers into their adult years.

These books are hopelessly lightweight, but I loved Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt books. I read every last one of them even though they are all pretty much the same! Over the years I have run into many men who are big fans, but not a whole lot of women. Actually, I have found it to be a great conversation starter on airplanes. (I don't like Cussler's new books with Kurt what's-his-name, though.)

During the 1980's I had a good male friend who was and is a voracious reader - he always bought paperbacks and gave them to me when he was finished. I think that is how I developed a taste for Le Carre, Ludlum, and others. (We're still friends but now live 3000 miles apart.)

Sibohan, I quite enjoy the Cussler books, as well. I was introduced to them by my father. A good deal of my reading choices have been influenced by my father, as we have very similar reading interests (non-fiction and fiction). On the other hand, my mother and I rarely agree on books that are interesting.

My father and I still trade books, especially now that I moved back to my hometown.

Siobhan, my DH is a huge fan of his. I've never read them, but when DH tells me about them, they always sound like I should like them. I just never get around to reading them.

I think the ultimate boy writer that has a "literary" reputation, although I don't know why is Norman Mailer. Have never finished anything by him and don't want to. I don't think that Le Carre or James Lee Burke qualify. I don't like the horrible violence in Burke but it's so perfectly presented that I forgive it because his hero is such a caring, sensitive, damaged man.

I don't think many men do well writing female characters but Wally Lamb's heroine in She's Come Undone was perfect. I had a hard time believing a man wrote it.

I don't know why my last paragraph disappeared! But I did say that I think the ultimate boy story is pornography and the ultimate girl story is the fairy tale, my prince will come, romance. Neither counts as literature, I don't know anyone who reads them but they sell like crazy.