Picoult Versus the NYT White Male Bias

wow. i am really shocked and disappointed to see the way this issue is being discussed in this forum. i think the authors raise some valid points that deserve respectful consideration.

as for alpha echo's claim that why should picoult care about bias even if it is real because she's a successful bestseller. well, that statement has me shaking with frustration.

What has me shaking with frustration is a bestselling author assuming use of the word 'lapidary' means someone is merely trying to look intelligent.

Patronising, much, Jodi?

rifferaff said:

wow. i am really shocked and disappointed to see the way this issue is being discussed in this forum. i think the authors raise some valid points that deserve respectful consideration.

as for alpha echo's claim that why should picoult care about bias even if it is real because she's a successful bestseller. well, that statement has me shaking with frustration.

Click to expand...

I should rephrase - even if it WERE real. I am not saying it is at all.

Can someone explain this NYT book review of Jodi Picoult's "Nineteen Minutes" from '07? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/books/16book.html?ref=magazine

Can someone explain THIS NYT book review of Jodi Picoult's "Vanishing Acts" from '05? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/books/24masl.html?fta=y

Or perhaps someone could explain THIS NYT book review of Jodi Picoult's "Change of Heart", from 2008? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/books/24masl.html?ref=magazine

And that's only reviews, not "articles" in the book section about her writing. There's also a big profile of her work, dissecting the subgenre of "children in peril". Why exactly is she claiming no reviews if she has a bunch?

Have you read the interview I posted?

Yes, and I understand that they are griping that a "women's genre" gets less respect than a "men's genre". She may have a point. I am of the opinion that "male genre" stuff like serious SF (and fantasy, which may be read predominantly by women but still has the popular image of being for sad loserish fanboys) and westerns are equally ignored by the NYT, so sexism may not be at work.

BUT the OP is about comments Picoult made on Twitter about wah wah NYT only reviews white males and they hate commercial fiction. I'm just pointing out that her whine seems misguided since she's had 3 reviews and 1 article in the NYT books section in the past 5 years, more than the vast majority of published writers in the world.

Fair enough.

Toothpaste said:

Have any of you read the Huffington post interviewing Picoult and Weiner on this? This issue is slightly more complicated than some of you are making out and quite frankly I think they put forth some interesting ideas, namely the age old: why is a genre that is clearly a "woman"'s genre, ie chick lit or romance, considered automatically lower than "male" genres - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-pinter/jodi-picoult-jennifer-weiner-franzen_b_693143.html

ETA: she cares about the bias, Alpha, because it affects women's genres in general, not just her work. Read the interview, it's quite enlightening and the first time I've actually understood what this whole debate is about.

Click to expand...

"Male" genres such as what? Sci fi and fantasy? Um, they consider those to be just as low. Let's not even consider what they'd say about horror.

Toothpaste said:

Fair enough.

Click to expand...

Ah ha. That'll teach me to post before finishing a thread. Cool.

But I'll repeat that it's as I said: commercial vs. noncommercial, or genre vs. literary, if you prefer. I don't think maleness and femaleness have much to do with it. Whiteness might, though. To say that there are no such conflicts in the lit world, as I often see claimed in this forum, is rather silly, IMO.

Picoult herself apparently sees it my way:

Well we can debate whether there are "male" and "female" genres, but that's for another time. But briefly, I think the fact that you only have genres dubbed as uniquely female but none such labeled male (as you attempted to define) is evidence enough of a male bias in the publishing world. We have "chick lit". We have "women's fiction". We don't have "male lit" or "male fiction". Male is the default, female is out of the norm and thus evidently must be specified. Just like you have Women's Basketball etc.

Toothpaste said:

Well we can debate whether there are "male" and "female" genres, but that's for another time. But briefly, I think the fact that you only have genres dubbed as uniquely female but none such labeled male (as you attempted to define) is evidence enough of a male bias in the publishing world. We have "chick lit". We have "women's fiction". We don't have "male lit" or "male fiction". Male is the default, female is out of the norm and thus evidently must be specified. Just like you have Women's Basketball etc.

Click to expand...

I hope you're kidding. This makes no sense at all, in any way. Trying to prove a positive by a negative is just silly. Especially when if it did have a point, it would be the exact opposite. Male is not the default, female is. Women are the majority readers by a fair margin, and it's women publishers cater to. The genre labels are one more piece of catering.

It's triply silly when you look at how many women buy books in every genre, how many editors are women in every genre, and how many reviewers are women in every genre, a how many best sellers there are by women in every genre, and how many of these bestsellers by women receive great reviews in every genre.

"Chic lit" is no more than a way of telling women "you'll really like this", and a way of telling men "you probably won't like this". To say this shows bias in publishing is probably the most illogical statement I've ever read. If it did show bias, it would be female bias, not male. It still wouldn't be true, but at least then the statement would make sense.

Most genres need no such labels because men and women both read them extensively, women more often than men in almost all of them.

I'm willing to bet that years ago, when women were expected only to stay home, cook and clean and run the household, that if anyone could read, it was the man who worked for a living.

So I'm willing to bet books back then were written by and for other men.

*coughBronteAustenEliotSandcough*

scarletpeaches said:

*coughBronteAustenEliotSandcough*

Click to expand...

*coughAlcottRadcliffeShelleyChopinStowecough*

I should have clarified most?

I don't really know.

I'm trying to work at the same time, and I haven't had a chance to write in weeks. lol

I'm an idiot.

Maybe it was even.

I myself am offended that Morton's does not carry McDonalds Hamburgers. Or that BMW dealerships do not sell Hyundai's.

All sarcasm aside, Picoult and Weiner are giving credence to the idea that the NYT has some unique power over books and their publicity. If you're well read and read in a variety of genres, then you have sources for finding good books in those genres. The NYT editorial staff chooses the books that interest them and their readers. If you don't subscribe to the same taste, it costs nothing to opt out of their opinions.

And yet James most of the most "respected" books are by men, the books that win the most awards are written by men (so much so that women felt a need to create their own prize - the Orange Book Awards in the UK). Sorry James, but you're wrong. Women might buy the most books, might read the most widely and yet it's still books by men that get the most recognition. It's the same thing as in the publishing industry. 80% of it or so is women, and yet the top positions are almost all held by men.

And I'm not using a negative to prove a positive. I proving that the default mode is men's fiction. Why call something women's fiction? Because the books are about women and issues for women? Does this mean only women therefore should read them? That means there's a special category for wiminz books, and all other books are just normal books. That's what the label suggests. But I suppose they don't feel a need to label "men's fiction" as many many women read books about men and men's issues. Now of course this is because women aren't scared to read about issues that they might not be able to personally relate to, or at least understand that even if the character is the opposite gender there still might be something interesting to read about, and men often don't feel the same way in reading about women. So maybe this just proves female superior reading skills, who knows.

And I'm sorry, but when an agent says she knows she'd have an easier time selling a literary work if it had been written by a man, when women are still use initials so that they are not pre-judged in typically "male" centric genres, when men who write romantic stories are categorised as general fiction and women who write almost the exact same stuff as "chick lit" . . . well I see a definite bias.

I'm a woman and I don't give a shit what the gender of an author may be. All I care about is that I get to read a good story. That's the only thing that will motivate me to pick up a book. Interesting blurb, interesting writing inside.

The skeptical side of my brain (which, to be fair, is the largest side of my brain) rejects the idea that there is some Vast Conspiracy Of Reviewers at the NYT, elbowing out female authors so they can only give positive reviews to authors with penises. Come on. MAYBE it's true, but I'd like more evidence than people pointing fingers and shrieking. Perhaps the reviewers are choosing only to write up reviews on books that have struck them, either good or bad, and don't have the time to spend on the rest. By chance, most of the recent or prominent reviews may be of male authors' works, but my guess is that if we were to take a very large sampling of reviews it would come out pretty darn close to 50/50.

Before I could believe Toothpaste's assertion that more men win prestigious awards for literary fiction than women, I'd need to see the numbers. Lots of numbers, from several years. As for the Orange Award, women all over the place make girls-only-clubs for their own awards and recognition. We've always done stuff like that. Just because such an award exists doesn't mean that those bastard grabby-gus men have monopolized all other awards.

I'm much more inclined to believe a genre bias than a gender bias. There do tend to be fewer reviews of all forms of commercial fiction on NYT than of literary fiction. Guess why. Because the readers of the NYT expect reviews of literary fiction. That's what they're interested in. The NYT is catering to its audience. Its customers. They are the ones who pay the bills, after all.

People seeking reviews of romance or sci-fi or anything else usually know where to go to find those reviews.

Occam's razor.

I read the Huffington Post interview while I can't comment on the NYT preference for literary books over commercial. I rarely read the NYT and barely read beyond a news story about politics and an occasional article about fashion related news and interviews. I do agree that there's a preference for men.

I feel a bit embarrassed for Piccoult, I just want to turn away and pretend the whole thing never happened.

I'm not a famous person, but as a woman, even I know that it never pays to raise concerns about gender bias, unless it is of the 'he grabbed my ass' kind. Don't get me wrong – I stand up for what I believe in, but why would I willingly bang my head against a brick wall? It requires months of research to argue a case like this. You need to have all your data, all your numbers, ready to pull out of your ass. And who has the time?

Besides, even then, no man will concede to your point because it is offensive to him. Most of the time biases are not instituted purposely. And most women (atleast in North America and the vast majority of the rest of the world too) will be offended as well, because they don't see it. People think the sexes are equal in today's world.

This whole thing is an uphill battle because it is a battle built into our society because of our history and the biology of the sexes. (oh crap, there I go)

One thing I notice over and over again (please note: in my own life, not necessarily out in the world at large) is that I am (and most of my female friends are) interested in many different genres of books and movies – horror, mystery, thriller, action, romance, chic flick/lit, etc. But most of the men in my life are not interested in those genres that focus more on emotions, romance, and typically have a heavier cast of female characters.

Often I watch movies and read books with no female characters. Do I feel excluded? Well, yes, but that's because I don't see a valid reason those books/movies are made like that. (Perhaps it is just to portray the world as it is, but I would find it much more admirable if writers tried to portray the world as it could/should be. Why not? Then maybe one day it will be.)

IMO this discussion is about so much more than Piccoult and the NYT and I would be very surprised if any consensus is actually found. For the record, I am willing to say that I think Piccoult is wrong to have acted like she did, and I don't know enough to say anything meaningful about the behaviour of the NYT.

DeaK said:

I'm not a famous person, but as a woman, even I know that it never pays to raise concerns about gender bias, unless it is of the 'he grabbed my ass' kind. Don't get me wrong – I stand up for what I believe in, but why would I willingly bang my head against a brick wall? It requires months of research to argue a case like this. You need to have all your data, all your numbers, ready to pull out of your ass. And who has the time?

Besides, even then, no man will concede to your point because it is offensive to him. Most of the time biases are not instituted purposely. And most women (atleast in North America and the vast majority of the rest of the world too) will be offended as well, because they don't see it. People think the sexes are equal in today's world.

Click to expand...

Wanting to see stats doesn't mean a person is denying that prejudice exists. I know there's prejudice against women. I've experienced it. Asked overall if I thought there was discrimination in publishing, I'd say yes. We don't live in an un-prejudiced world.

But I still want to see stats when it's a specific case that lends itself to stats. The proportion of book reviews for different groups of authors is ideal for statistical analysis. So ideal that it makes me dubious when someone makes a claim without any numbers backing it up (even the numbers for the last few editions of the NYT would be better than nothing and wouldn't take that long to compile).

Tess Gerritsen wrote an insightful blog post about this whole brouhaha. I'm inclined to take the same attitude.

You really don’t need the New York Times. You don’t need Michiko Kakutani or Janet Maslin or three whole fricking pages in the Book Review. Because you have something far, far better: readers who actually buy your books.

Click to expand...

http://www.tessgerritsen.com/blog/dear-jodi-and-jennifer/

Wanting to see stats doesn't mean a person is denying that prejudice exists. I know there's prejudice against women. I've experienced it. Asked overall if I thought there was discrimination in publishing, I'd say yes. We don't live in an un-prejudiced world.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you, and just wanted to add that I didn't mean specifically in this thread. My point was just that a lot of people do want to see stats in order for them to believe that prejudice exists – and I don't have time for that.

But I still want to see stats when it's a specific case that lends itself to stats. The proportion of book reviews for different groups of authors is ideal for statistical analysis. So ideal that it makes me dubious when someone makes a claim without any numbers backing it up (even the numbers for the last few editions of the NYT would be better than nothing and wouldn't take that long to compile).

Click to expand...

I'm also interested in seeing these numbers, though I'm sure whatever they turn out to be, won't lead to a conclusive answer to the question of whether the NYT is biased in favour of male authors.