Some of you wonderful readers out there may have noticed that there is a pitched argument going on over at the Customer Reviews section of Amazon.com's page on my novel, The Long Walk Home. A female reviewer--the only one, I have to note, who hasn't praised the book so far--complains that my main male character, Alex Hudson, is "like a superman." This reader argues, among other things, that, "No man could do all these things [that Alec does]...and do them like a professional."
Another reader--a man, in fact, and a steelworker in the Midwest--takes her on and they have a frankly not-too-polite contretemps.
I want to say to both of them, "People! It's just a story!" But the fact is that this disagreement raises an important issue.
Bashing men for their apparent insensitivity, for their occasional incompetence in relationships, for their general knuckleheadedness, is a perennial theme on sit-coms, in contemporary culture and, for that matter, in a fair amount of contemporary women's fiction. Google phrases like "good men," or "decent guys," and you'll find plenty of complaining. (As well as complaints from men trying to find good and decent women!)
Are guys hopeless? And, by contrast, is a character like Alec Hudson, a "Superman?" Of course not. In fact, he makes it clear that his own characteristics played a part in his divorce from Gwynne. He's no saint. But he does strive to be a decent man.
I have the great good fortune of having a group of writer friends, most but not all of them men, who meet almost weekly for a couple of drinks and some heated conversation about writing and other things at a certain Seattle watering hole. And I have to say, there isn't a hairy mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, football-addled, club-wielding brute among them. They are, to a man, thoughtful, articulate, multi-talented, caring, respectful, and admiring of women. Okay, I'll admit that when some especially lovely woman walks into the bar, their heads turn as if controlled by a single mechanism, but you know what? Each of them overcomes that basic, evolutionary response in an instant and--if you looked into their souls you'd find each is thoroughly loyal to the woman they call friend, or lover, and/or spouse.
They are, in fact, Good Men. And let's be clear: though their talents are many, and though they all would, I suspect, be characterized as "sensitive" guys by the women they know best, they are also all Real Men.
One is an accomplished rower, explorer, and sea kayaker, as well as a world-renowned photographer, avid cook, and wine fancier. Another is a magazine editor who is also an expert on Michelangelo and, of all things, elephants. Yet another is a PhD. marine biologist, a best-selling thriller novelist, and a staunch supporter of his wife's work with Native American communities in the Northwest.
I could go on, because the group is fairly large. But the point is, none of these men is a "Superman." They're just guys who have competence in their chosen vocation, avid interests outside their jobs, and a deep respect and affection for the women in their lives.
Here's the bottom line: A man can be sensitive without being effeminate. A man can have a caring heart without being indecisive. A man can have competence in many subjects and activities. But he is still just a man.
And not a "Superman."
