I suppose it's possible that it only works in one direction...that women can write men but not vice-versa. This would fit in well with the "Men Are Scum" worldview. Women pay enough attention to men to be able to write male characters convincingly, but men are too chauvenistic self-centered to do the same. But this just doesn't seem logical to me, so I tend to conclude that the whole thing is hogwash--with specific exceptions, of course.

No female who has ever read my writing has ever commented that my female characters are unrealistic, even when I've specifically asked. The thing is—and I know this viewpoint is often discredited here and elsewhere—I don't truly believe men and women are all that different. The stereotypes about men and women are, but stereotypes don't fit me, and I try not to create characters who are stereotypes. I think if you make your characters real to you and understand their motivations, you will end up writing them realistically, be they female, male, or other. At least, their psychology and motivations will be realistic.

There is one area in which I don't feel capable of writing a female character realistically, though. If my POV character is female, I tend to keep the doors closed when she undresses. I don't attempt to describe what her period feels like, or what effect it's having on her, or if she gets aroused when something brushes up against her, or how sex feels to her. Write what you know, right? I don't see this as a significant problem; there is so much more to people than our sexual apparatuses. Frankly, I don't tend to go into detail of that sort with my male characters, unless it truly furthers the story (which it has, on occasion). One problem is, I believe, that even if I got it right, some women would be so indignant at my attempt to describe what I could not possibly have experienced, that I would be ripped into shreds for even making the attempt.

Which leads me to my reason for posting...

As I mentioned, I have rarely, if ever, been truly put off by something I read by a woman being an unrealistic depiction of masculinity. Until the other day. I was reading the short story "Jamie Says," by Louise Marley, from the August 2002 issue of Asimov's. (I tend to go out and buy a half-dozen sci-fi mags at once, and leave them sitting around our various bathrooms until I finally get around to reading them...in case you're wondering why I'm just reading a story published in July now.)

This story begins really well. It is set in a colony world in which all the women and girls have left, rather than put up with any more mistreatment by the men of the colony. The story centers around men (and boys, who were also left behind) trying to cope with the aftershocks of this. The main character is the last boy born before the women left. The story is engagingly written, with a likeable main character with a very real voice. The situation is enigmatic, but hints are thrown in that keep you piecing the puzzle together.

Everything is going smoothly, until this line:

quote:

---

The reverend let us go out and see the shuttle come in. The dads and the bigger boys, like Jamie, had the landing strip cleaned up and weeded and a new coat of tar spread on it. The shuttle is bigger than any plow or wagon, and it makes a noise that comes in through your ears and fills your head right to the brim. I wanted to cry from it, but my own dad was standing right beside me, not saying anything like always. I didn't want him to see me bawling, so I put my hands in my pockets and held on to my dingle, real tight. That always kept me from crying.

---

I was so distracted by that line that I put the magazine down and didn't finish the story for several more days. I did, however, make fun of that line out loud to Cor at various times over the next few days, whenever it seemed apropos.

[You hurt my feelings! I think I'll just...]

If that's not the sign of bad writing, I don't know what is.

Maybe I'm completely off here. I haven't gone around asking other guys, but to me that line was absurdly bad.

Now, who knows, maybe some guy told her that this was what he did. But the fact that something did happen once does not equal realism. Realism is believability, not factual basis. Every writer should know this. A perfect example is coincidence. Coincidences happen all the time, but, outside of comedy, they are usually considered a poor writing technique, a cop-out.

For the rest of the story, Marley makes it impossible to forget this distraction as she shoves the line in the reader's face over and over:

quote:

---

I snuck my doll out from under my bed and hugged it under the covers, then held my dingle real tight, but I still couldn't help crying.

---

and:

quote:

---

I didn't bawl any more. I went back to bed. I hid under the covers, holding my dingle real tight. I left my doll where it was. I didn't want to pretend with it anymore.

---

It's a shame, because it's very well-written and complex, otherwise.

Have you ever read something that jarred you to the point of shredding the illusion, as this did for me? Does it always jar you when men write women, or when women write men? Does it only raise your eyebrow when it crosses a certain line? Is that line the same as my "shut the door when she takes her clothes off" criterion, or is it somewhere else for you?
 

Dude, that would HURT! Gah, kid got brain damage or something?

And who the foosball calls it a dingle, anyway? q:
 

I've never honestly studied the phenomenon of men writing women, and vice versa -- although i was once told by a good girl friend of mine that "Memoirs of a Geisha," written by a man, but about a woman, was stunning in its accuracy. I read the book myself, and while i enjoyed it, the level of depth with which the author described female emotions et al did not strike me as being "amazing"...just normal.

I prefer it when authors treat all their characters, no matter what gender, equal (as our own OSC does)...Valentine and Petra seem as real to me as any woman, and Card doesn't go into unnecessary detail about *their* sexuality, etc.

A strange thing I've noticed about how I personally read a story is that I'm much more accepting of innacuracies and inconsistancies in writing than i am in theatre or film. Where I will sit and pick apart secondary characters on Buffy the Vampire Slayer , I will accept similar flaws in literary characters readily.

I don't know if i'm describing this well, or what exactly it means, but anyway, your question was "Have you ever read something that jarred you to the point of shredding the illusion, as this did for me?"
I may very well have. But i probably didn't note it at the time. Or figured I just wasn't understanding the author's motivations behind writing the jarring incident. Does that make any sense? I think i might just be talking nonsense...

[This message has been edited by Leonide (edited February 04, 2003).]
 

::can't let that go without comment::

quote:

---

One problem is, I believe, that even if I got it right, some women would be so indignant at my attempt to describe what I could not possibly have experienced, that I would be ripped into shreds for even making the attempt.

---

I don't think you should let this intimidate you . I think a lot of writing situations are like this; for an example, OSC is working on a novel, Slow Leak, that takes place in an African American community. He's doing meticulous research and getting lots of advice, and I think he can pull it off.

Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur S. Golden is a good example of a man writing very intimately about female sexuality. I don't think he nails it, but the story is good enough that I'm willing to overlook it. I believe he worked very hard on the details of the book and he wrote convincingly enough that I could believe that the details of sex were true enough for this character, even if things weren't at all like that for me personally.

How many women honestly think that sex feels the same for all women anyway?
 

::curses her slow typing::
 

Ladyday, while the intimidation factor is present, that's not what's stopping me. I've simply never needed to go there in any of my stories. I suppose the fact that I'm (slightly) more willing to explore sexual specifics with my male characters than with my female characters points to a necessarily less realistic development of my female characters, but since I don't believe people's personalities revolve exclusively around sex (at least, not those of people worth knowing ), I don't see this as a big problem. Am I making sense, or am I starting to ramble?

"dingle pulling"

*snort*
 

You make perfect sense, Icarus.
 

[This message has been edited by Icarus (edited February 04, 2003).]
 

Of course, maybe I'm doing it wrong and no woman has told me yet!!!! Yikes!!!!

Heh.
 

Lois McMasters Bujold actually doesn't sit right with me.

Her Vorkosigan series is cool, its interesting and fairly engaging, but i just really can't care about what happens in the series. The main character who's a guy just doesn't seem right... ::shrugs::
 

And I don't quite agree with your point about gender differences, but we've hit this point before, and that's really a whole 'nother thread. It may be that I'm just not "typical" enough (or manly enough ) to see it that way.

[This message has been edited by Icarus (edited February 04, 2003).]
 

I actually have a hard time writing from a woman's perspective. That may be because I'm annoyed by a lot of the petty squabbling and cat fighting that a lot of women do, and haven't come up with a character who is above all that without being me. My inexperience as a writer I suppose.

Ni!
 

I can't wait for Rachel and Leah just for the fights .

And the jury is still out on David's comments, though I have to say that his writing kind of speaks for itself in this regard. I found all of David's female characters well written and nicely fleshed out.
 

lol

 

Hmm. On second thought, I think it would still be absurdly bad. I don't know how a concept like that could be salvaged and worked into a story without distracting the readers to the point of ruining the story.

Ugh. I'm still trying to figure out why the author felt it was necessary to put that in even once, let alone multiple times, especially with virtually identical wording that includes the word "dingle."

To answer the original questions, I have read things that jarred me to the point of shredding the illusion. Fortunately, I don't remember specifics. I almost never have problems with men writing women or women writing men. That line was way out there.
 

quote:

---

Not at all. I was only referring to Leo's concern that she might have been.

---

i guess i'm a big goober, but...that i might have been what?

Pulling your 'dingle' would CAUSE tears, IMHO, not prevent them.
 

Leo, I was referring to this:

quote:

---

I may very well have. But i probably didn't note it at the time. Or figured I just wasn't understanding the author's motivations behind writing the jarring incident. Does that make any sense? I think i might just be talking nonsense...

---

You were making sense. Ladyday was making sense. I was concerned that perhaps I was not.

'kay?

*starts looking for ways to work "dingle" into the Hatrack AIM chat...*
 

Why...is it making you uncomfortable?
 

Shingles?

I like the sound of it.
 

dingle dingle dingle

oops, sorry Pod!*

*shivers*

Belle's in my head!
 

(Don't look, Ethel!)

 

Agggghhh!!!!!

Or are you all just pulling my dingle? I mean...um...leg...

Ok. yes, I should shut up now
 

Now, dingle will be a new word in the hatrack lexicon and you've made sure that it will always be linked to MY name.

Wonderful.
 

[This message has been edited by Fernando Martinez (edited February 04, 2003).]
 

It gives you that fresh, dingling feeling!
 

Children.

All body parts have appropriate names and just as we would call an eye and eye and a tooth a tooth, so should we call a penis a penis.

Besides - it's more alliterative -

pulling penises, a profound proposition full of poppycock . . .
 

quote:

---

fresh, dingling feeling

---

There's a mind picture for you.
 

To the tune of the Dradel song...

Dingle dingle dingle
I hold you every day
Dingle dingle dingle
You hold my tears away

 

Sorry - took me a minute to connect the username. I think all the dingle-talk must have warped my brain.
 

[This message has been edited by Leonide (edited February 04, 2003).]
 

[This message has been edited by Fernando Martinez (edited February 05, 2003).]
 

quote:

---

First off, to answer the question at hand, after 4 years in college getting an english degree I have run into dozens of experiences where authors shattered their own reality.

---

Hmm...in four years of college getting a literature degree plus two years of grad school getting a masters in lit, I've never seen anything quite this bad.

I did see lots of famous writers who didn't seem able to write either gender convincingly, but that's a different story...

quote:

---

Oh, Icarus, have you ever had a thread that went THIS much off-topic?

---

Nope. But then, I've never had a thread reach 2 pages in 2½ hours either. Just goes to show the power of fluff.

ROFLMAO about the dingle song!

Dingles: Once you pop, you can't stop!

 

quote:

---

*laments her dingle that never was*

---

dingle envy?
 

not yours.

I'm not having much trouble writing from a woman's perspective at the moment. I'm working on a project from the female POV (it's called 101 Ways to Find a Great Guy in NYC), and I've only been called out once for writing too manly.

And not once have I suggested "sliding a couple fingers into your winkie in case of nervousness".

I am not anti feminist
I just like making people think
 

quote:

---

sliding a couple fingers into your winkie in case of nervousness".

---

for some reason this disturbs me more than any dingle talk

Frisco!! *waves fist threateningly*
 

quote:

---

I heard the best way to write women is to take a man and remove all sensibility and common sense.

---

According to Melvin Udall in As Good As It Gets...

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

Melvin: I think of a man, and then I take away reason, and accountability.
 

It's a classic.

Q.
 

I'm 23 and know more about "oldies" than I do about whatever my age group's supposed to be listening to these days. . .

Q., an old lady in deceptively young skin.
 

Fernando, I agree that Jordan's female characters are one of his strengths, but I guess only a female could say if they were "realistic" or not. I say they're a strength because they are dynamic and interesting, and not walking stereotypes. And, unlike some other famous works, the Wheel of Time series at least has some significant female characters.
 

The fact that the grown men are all lousy fathers and abusive jerks is another point worth discussing, but I could stomach that more easily, particularly since the women are also indicted, by their failure to save their sons along with their daughters. According to the story, children of both genders stayed home with their mothers while the men worked; the mothers took all the girls but left the boys behind.

So I just saw this as an issue with this particular culturally homogenous group of colonists, and attempted to not read it as an indictment of males in general. If I wanted to, though, I could probably work up some indignation over it...
 

quote:

---

but pulling my dingle would only make me more inclined to cry!

---

well, maybe he wasn't pulling it in that way...
 

*three Dingle-licious pages*

[This message has been edited by Leonide (edited February 05, 2003).]
 

I think this author might have a few unresolved issues, you know?

 

::Runs away holding dingle::
 

That makes sense.
 

Put another way... What if you had a female character in a tense situation... Lemme try this:

quote:

---

THe train lurched, and I knew something was wrong. A bit more force than usual for a stop. Then the world turned sideways all at once, flinging me against the metal wall hard enough to bruise my jahoobies.

---

See? If you are gonna use slang, try to find something that isn't going to make a reader spew cola out their nose.

[This message has been edited by Olivet (edited February 05, 2003).]
 

I thought, "A three page thread that I haven't seen at all? When was it started? It must be an old one that's been bumped."

I checked. It was started yesterday. Last night, even.

So, I knew I had to read it. Only something very funny or very controversial could possibly generate three pages since last night.

Now, I have "Dingle Belle Rock" stuck in my head, and probably will all day. Thanks, guys!

I really do love Hatrack.
 

winkie, and ah, jahoobies

Right, then.

quote:

---

"Memoirs of a Geisha," written by a man, but about a woman, was stunning in its accuracy.

---

And secondly, though a man wrote the book, he is supposed to have written it after extensive interviews with the woman the main character was based on, who actually said later that it wasn't such a perfect portrayal of her.

(I did love the book though! )
 

quote:

---

so I put my hands in my shirt and held on to my bazoombas, real tight. That always kept me from crying.

---

Yep. That'd make me cry MORE.
 

quote:

---

...it's probably easy for us 'not-so-macho' guys to write women...Tom Clancy types seem to have more difficulty.

---

I think there probably is something to this. I also think - and this is my personal opinion, based on absolutely no research - that women have less trouble writing male characters than some men have writing female characters due to our cultural bias against men "being in touch with" (I hate that phrase, but couldn't think of anything more appropriate) female attitudes. This suspicion may well come from the men I know and their general reluctance to know anything about the female experience, and so may be completely off-base. However, my experience is that women know much more about the things men do and think than men know about the things women do and think. Or, at least, women are more willing to admit knowledge across gender lines.
 

Just a thought. Again, no research or anything. Also, it may not be as true today as it once was, since so many more women write. Still, I'd be willing to bet that many modern female writers are at least a bit influenced by the work of some male writers.

I should confess that I generally do not go for the gyno-centric, contemplation-of-the-vagina types of stories that seem to do so well in the feminist lit-crit circles. I have an English Degree, but I still expect to be entertained. That makes me low-brow, I guess.

*scratches self and belches delicately*
 

quote:

---

I suppose it's possible that it only works in one direction...that women can write men but not vice-versa. This would fit in well with the "Men Are Scum" worldview. Women pay enough attention to men to be able to write male characters convincingly, but men are too chauvenistic self-centered to do the same.

---

But you're qualifying it to say some men. I don't agree, though, that women as a whole are more likely to be open to the male experience than men are to the female experience. Certainly, there are degrees of variation on both sides, but I know plenty of women who think, for instance, that all sports are stupid, and can't understand why they are important to many men, who have no idea how a car works, except that it somehow involves gas, and so forth. I suspect that stereotype women make up about the same percentage of women as a whole that stereotype men do for men.

In addition, authors, whether male or female, tend to be the artistic among us. That type of person often, though certainly not always, has a greater comfort zone exploring different sides of his or her own personality than other people. Besides, being able to put yourself in other people's shoes is practically a requirement of being a writer.

So, how often have you two had experiences of reading a female character written by a male and saying, absolutely not? Is it most of the time, or a minority of the time?
 

Personally, I don't think all that much about labels such as "high-brow" versus "low-brow". What matters to me is that what I am reading is interesting. There has to be a good story; I am much more forgving of a writer who tells a good story but isn't always grammatically perfect than I am of one who can produce several hundred pages of perfect grammar but doesn't have anything interesting or important to say. Certainly, at a certain point, if the writing is just awful, I'll give up and put the book or story down.
 

That makes sense.

Of course, I'm not sure that the characters in those novels who are of the author's same gender are that realistic either. I've read all the Dirk Pitt books, because I got addicted to them as a kid and I'm obsessive about finishing anything I start reading. And I'd have to say that none of the male characters there quite rings true. Doesn't mean the books are not fun in their silly little Saturday Matinee way, but there it is.

So let me ask you a follow-up question. When you read a romance novel aimed at women, with admittedly poor characterization of men, are the women believable? I've never read in that genre, so I really don't know. Do they at least get women right? I don't mean the little details now. One would assume a female author would know what certain, *things* would feel like; but in terms of motivation and psychology, are they real?
 

Then the president of the company found out that a man wrote the article. I didn't know about this until I saw the final proofs for the magazine. Supposedly because of this, she had gone in and rewritten the whole thing, along with her hench-woman the vice president. And it was the most unreadable self-righteous pile of crap I've ever seen. I'd conducted interviews with actual woman who were working from home, and what they said was the backbone of my article. I loaded the article with their good quotes. Gone were the quotes, and in their place was slapped a bunch of super-pc nonsense.

And now we're working on marketing products specifically made for men, and this same president is slashing anything that sounds remotely like "guy" language. And yelling at us for missing the point of the product line. This is a traditionally female-oriented product company, and I guess they really don't want to talk to men. Grrr.
 

I know from experience that "realness" of writing gets better each time...either that or I'm getting older. With my first book, I wrote from a male's POV and couldn't figure out if I had it right. The guys who've read it say I got it okay. My second book was from a male child's POV, so that was much easier... I guess because sexuality isn't developed in a ten-year-old (at least the one I was writing about). The novel I'm working on now involves a large family and it's tougher and more exciting than the first two, I suppose because of the complexity of relationships, how people differ when relating to different people, and how the family I'm writing about is very different from the one I grew up in (yeah, I know, grammatically correct would be 'in which I grew up' but it sounds pretentious).

What I think I'm trying to say is that it's hard to write about what you haven't...lived? experienced? immersed in?
 

This thread made me laugh!! Y'all are a hoot. Mack, sweetie, I don't even know what to say about your song. I'm stunned. I'm amazed. It frightened me that you came up with it so quickly.

The only comment I have about the whole "please don't squeeze the charmin" thing is pressure over pain. Smack your finger, grab your finger. Pressure over pain works for a lot of things.

Though why missing mommy (heartache) would lead him to his penis is beyond me...

[This message has been edited by Kayla (edited February 05, 2003).]
 

Okay, the real point, you can get away with writing kids and not know what you are talking about, but the age limit on that is becoming younger and younger.
 

I do know what you mean about the male characters in Cussler's novels, even though I always thought the male characters were a bit - sometimes just a bit - more believeable than the female characters. I've read most of the Dirk Pitt novels as well, BTW. Side note: Which was the one that ends up with a chase scene through Pirates of the Caribbean (sp?) at Disneyland? I think of that now every time I go on that ride.
 

Here's the original article written by yours truly.

Here's the way the article appeared in print. (Not as nicely formatted!)

I'm more angry about the way it got handled: I didn't even know it was being revised until I saw the proof. I'm supposed to take care of revisions myself. I don't mind making them to what I write, but I hate it when somebody rewrites me and doesn't tell me. Maybe that biased me, I don't know. If you like the new one better, I won't hold it against you.

Anyway, one "romance novel" or series that worked for me in all-around characterization-- Outlander, by Diane Gabaldon.

I was coaxed into reading it by Hatrackers, who promised me it was more of a historical, timetravel fantasy than a "romance".

*falls under desk laughing*
 

I have not read the last Outlander novel - because I know if I do it will be tortuous waiting for the next one to come out. See, now it's my choice, not Gabaldon's that I do without the next installment.
 

But that story was The Ugly Little Boy. And Azimov got it right.

I loved the anthology, but I then felt a serious need for estrogen so pressing I scoured the Romance section in the library. I found a book that was calling to me.

I still have that book somewhere, I think. A reminder that while my favorite author is (at moments) Jack London, it's okay to love the romance.

Ahhh...I see. Okay, get you now. @myself

PS...I'm interested to read the one just called Geisha, the book by Liz Dalby, the first Western woman to train as a geisha. Of course this is as a modern geisha, so not quite the same rules apply, but should still be interesting.
 

but that doesn't excuse what a horrific and astoundingly STUPID job she did.
 

(I'm convinced that "have it all" means do the man's work and the woman's work. )

Ahem: DINGLE!

That's all.

Shawn "Smears" Smyres
 

My words are pretty important to me. I would share your anger if somebody changed them. Especially if they changed them without ever approaching me about it. It would feel like a slap in the face to me. I assume you wrote this freelance...do you need to submit material to these people again?
 

Porce, that makes sense, and I think you're right. But then it's an example of sabotaging the readability of a story to wedge in a clumsy symbolism, something I abhor in fiction.
 

Yeah, the new stuff wasn't dripping with pc like I was ranting about, but it was unreadable and self-justifying. It carried all that empty corporate-speak. Who wants to read that? It's like slogging through a company memo. I'm not saying mine was a spectacular piece, but theirs brought tears to my eyes.

Icarus, their altering of the direct quotes (and tacking on their little explanations) is purely unprofessional. That's all the explanation I can give. Like I said, they do it because they can. That's how they throw their power around.

This isn't freelance. I work for the company's creative department, basically an in-house ad agency. That actually gives me a bit more leverage, because I know everyone who works there and I can help get things running right. I usually don't do work for this division, but the several pieces I've done for them have all wound up like this. Just yesterday, a brochure that we thought we had all wrapped up nicely came back with paragraphs of text added and changes all throughout what I'd already written (and gotten approved by the normal marketing folk). And the contact person who'd until then been so accomodating warned me not to change one word. Literally. I took out some bad typos and added a few commas and left in all the horrible run-on sentences they'd added. And I told the account rep that I wasn't going to sign off on the changes, because I wasn't taking responsibility for the text anymore and I didn't want my name on it.

I could go on. Luckily, I don't work with them very often. But I'm complaining, and the right people do listen to me, and things will change. That brochure was the cement pillar that broke the camel's back.

This isn't a criticism of female execs--merely a criticism of impotent execs. And I actually do enjoy working in the department. This really is the exception, and there's plenty of fine people who handle revisions in a much more professional manner. When I do go freelance, this will doubtlessly be good experience. I need to learn how to handle clients like this.
 

Ooh...don't use rock and scissors in a thread obsessed with 'dingles'.
 

For example...

Dingle me this, Batman!

If it weren't for bad dingle, I'd have no dingle at all.

Every dingle tells a story.

A dingle's worth a thousand words.

Everytime a bell rings, an angel gets his dingle.

If God had wanted man to fly, He would've given us dingles.

A dingle a day keeps the doctor away.

 

When I was a little bitty boy,
My grandmother bought me a brand new toy.
Silver bells tied on a string,
She told me it was my DINGLEingleing!

**skip to last verse**

For those of you who will not sing,
You must be playin' with your own dingling!

**ahem**

Terribly sorry.

Q.
 

Well, to make up for it:

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest dingle.

A dingle earned is a dingle saved.

A dingle in time saves nine.

A dingle's work is never done.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull dingle.

Great dingles think alike.

Necessity is the mother of dingles.

No man is a dingle.

Man does not live by dingles alone.

Never judge a dingle by it's cover.

There's not such thing as a free dingle.

Two dingles are better than one.

You catch more flies with dingles than vinegar.

Youth is wasted on the dingle.

And my favorite:

Two wongs don't make a dingle.
 

Owie owie owie ow!!!
 

quote:

---

A rolling dingle gathers no moss

---

quote:

---

Never judge a dingle by its cover.

---

And the acupuncture thing. That's just WRONG!!!

LOL

[This message has been edited by Bob_Scopatz (edited February 06, 2003).]
 

A dingle in the hand is worth two in the bush.

( )
 

poor, poor thread

(btw, Ralphie wins. I wish I'd thought of that.)

 

I've been ruined -

I really thought it should have been poppycock
 

HAHAHAHAHAHA
 

Absence makes the dingle grow fonder

Dingles speak louder than words.

When you are an anvil, hold you still; when you are a dingle, strike your fill.

You will catch more dingles with a spoonful of honey than with a gallon of vinegar.
(a variation on one of Ralphies)
 

*nods to Gene Roddenberry*
 

The dingle is mightier than the sword?

I think they both work.
 

"There are dingles. Billions and billions of dingles."

Q.
 

THe Dingle is mighter than the sword?
 

quote:

---

My blood runs cold,
my memory has just been sold,
my dingle's in a centerfold...
dingle's in a centerfold...

---

Jeez, Icarus, that was funny.
 

quote:

---

I'll have a blue dingle without you...

---

Some Victorian-era historical reproduction "Dolly Dingle" paperdolls as http://www.hersmine.com/dolly_dingle.htm
Also to see all of the countries Dolly Dingle visited. http://www.tituscollectibles.com/dolly.html
Dolly Dingle appears to have been a bit hermaphroditic.

A bit about the artist from
www.teachingcomics.org/docs/women.pdf

"...Grace Drayton, is bestknown for creating the Campbell Kids in 1905. Until her death in 1936, Draytonproduced countless comics featuring cute toddlers, all looking like the Campbell Kids,with a confusion of names like Toodles, Toddles, Dolly Drake, Bobby Blake, Dolly Dingle, Dolly Dimples, and Dotty Darling."

What fun Hatrack could have with those names.....

 

This should be saved for the future dingles of america.
 

I missed this, (as in "oh, it went away!...not as in I didn't see it) we should always have it on the first page...and Icarus was "The Dingle(tm)" On GreNME for a spell...

quote:

---

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.

One shade the more, one ray the less,
Had half impair'd the nameless grace
Which waves in every raven tress,
Or softly lightens o'er her face;
Where thoughts serenely sweet express
How pure, how dear their dwelling-place.

And on that cheek, and o'er that brow,
So soft, so calm, yet eloquent,
The smiles that win, the tints that glow,
But tell of days in goodness spent,
A mind at peace with all below,
A dingle whose love is innocent!

---