I come to a problem in my WIP. I have a group of people in my story that wear clothing that prevents the character from know if they are male or female. What would be the correct pronoun to use in this situation?
Posted by rickfisher (Member # 1214) on :
Which one you use depends on your POV character. A male chauvinist would just use "he." (So would a lot of non-male chauvinists--I'm not saying that use of "he" implies male chauvinism, just the other way around.) A dyed-in-the-wool feminist would use "she." A cynic would just use "it." Someone who can't take a stand would use something like "he or she. Or it."
In other words, it's not a matter of grammar here. It's a matter of the POV character's attitude.
Oh, as an aside, grammatically there's no good answer. "They" and "their" and "them" are accepted by some, these days, as singular for individuals of unknown or unspecified sex, but generally such usage is still considered a number violation.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
You can try to refer to them in the plural, so that "they" doesn't violate number.
You have to figure out how your point-of-view character sees and thinks about them, as rickfisher pointed out.
Posted by gobi13x (Member # 6837) on :
I see what you mean. I guess I will need to examine the way my character thinks about it. Thanks for the help.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
One can speak of "One verbs..." when one is writing dialog...
One can also use the names of the characters exclusively...
Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :
Must be weird clothing. You can usually tell women from their, um, curves, and they move differently from men.
Of course if they're space suits I get it--except wouldn't they have names on their helmets?
Just a thought, Pat
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited December 19, 2007).]
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
If you put both men and women in a burka, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Not all clothing shows curves. As for moving differently, well, people move differently depending on their background, their status, their physical fitness, their self-perception, their shoes and clothing (I assure you I walk differently on the rare occasion I put on high heels or when I wear a skirt instead of my usual jeans) and so forth. If you can't see the curves on the women or the broader shoulders on the men, I can see that telling the difference would be pretty difficult.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 19, 2007).]
Posted by kings_falcon (Member # 3261) on :
There is no guarantee that a non-humans would have distinct differences between the genders. Or that a human seeing these alien races would be able to differentiate.
Posted by Sunshine (Member # 3701) on :
Have you considered creating a gender-neutral pronoun that pertains specifically to that group? You could also borrow a gender-neutral pronoun from an existing language.
Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :
Any society in which gender is unknown will have naturally developed pronouns that work for them. To not introduce such pronouns falsifies the society you've created.
One suggestion from back in the days when "Ms." was coined:
"Te was on ter way when it occurred to tim that te had left ter book at home." Spouces are mates, children sprouts, siblings sibs, and parents rents.
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
While I kind of agree with the point Rick made, it would make reading so difficult that I think I'd try to find something less intrusive. I'm afraid sentences full of te's and ter's would quickly put readers off--although the other words wouldn't be that intrusive and would make a nice touch.
If it were me, I'd go with using plural pronouns as singular probably. People are fairly accustomed to those being used as non-gender specific in reading and speech.
Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :
Is't azminag how esaliy poelpe raed ufnalimair txet.
Posted by Lynda (Member # 3574) on :
why not just give them a "group name" and use that? The plebians . . . The Tortoise People . . . The Unknown Groupies . . . I'm being silly, but you can come up with a term for the group if that's what you want to do. Then you can call them "them" because you've grouped them together (you can probably do that anyway, if they're a faceless mass group, rather than individuals, which is what it sounds like here).
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
Rick, you are missing the point. People can read scrambled text usually without too much difficulty. However, the terms you are talking about aren't scrambled real works but made up words that would have to be sprinkled throughout almost every sentence.
It wouldn't be easy reading and I think (my own opinion) that you would lose many if not most readers. I think it would be very difficult for the average reader and anything that makes a reader have to read text twice is highly likely to simply make them put it down.
So we simply disagree on the subject.
Posted by Spaceman (Member # 9240) on :
Back to the original question, I think the answer will say a lot about the POV character, and the choice you make will set the tone of the dtory. You, the author, really have to be the one to figure that out on your own because only you understand the effect you want.
Assuming for the sake of discussion that the POV character is male, if you refer to the character as "he," then you imply a great deal about the character's sense of individualism. Call the character s/he and you look pretentious. If you prefer to be a bit more indeterminant, then use something other than a pronoun. Say, if this is a group of acolytes, then say 'the acolyte'.
Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :
I just remebered we have an almost perfect model to follow, Ursula Le Guin's "Coming of Age in Karhide" in _Birthday of the World_.
My earlier point is that readers will put up with a lot (much more than editors will up with put). After all, I forced myself all the way through the Hugo winning "The Concrete Jungle" by Charles Stross, even though it is written in the present tense -- annoying, but not as annoying as the endless digressions.
Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :
We all say they. So why shouldn't we write they? You come to an office that says Pat Jenkins, you knock but no one is there, "Oh they must out," you say.
Although I like Spaceman's Acolyte idea.
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
Spaceman, there was no need to go back to the original topic since we were still ON the original topic. Thanks.
A male referring to everyone as "he" wouldn't show a sense of individualism. In our own society, it would show that he was either very traditional, probably elderly, or else that he was a sexist jerk. In a society where not being able to tell gender of some people was the norm, it might possibly some form of psychosis or show else being extremely self-centered.
If it is the population in general who wear gender-neutral clothing, then I'd say that just use they. No need to complicate it. If it is an identifiable group then referring to them as "the druid" or whatever would work.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 27, 2007).]
Posted by Spaceman (Member # 9240) on :
quote:A male referring to everyone as "he" wouldn't show a sense of individualism.
That isn't what I meant. If the character is a member of said group and the author refers to this character as 'he,' then it implies a sense of individualism. The character does not think of himself as gender neutral in this group situation or as part of a collective.
In the group, the POV character probably knows the others, so would address them by name (assuming the others have names) or would probably know the gender.