New study shows male writers still get the lion's share of critics' attention.

[leahzero]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/04/research-male-writers-dominate-books-world

In the US, The New York Review of Books shows a stronger bias. Among authors reviewed, 83% are men (306 compared to 59 women and 306 men), and the same statistic is true of reviewers (200 men, 39 women). The New York Times Book Review fares better, with only 60% of reviewers men (438 compared to 295 women). Of the authors with books reviewed, 65% were by men (524 compared to 283 by women).

Looks like Jodi Picoult and company were on to something regarding accusations of gender bias by literary critics.

 

[Jamesaritchie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/04/research-male-writers-dominate-books-world
Looks like Jodi Picoult and company were on to something regarding accusations of gender bias by literary critics.

What gender bias? Men simply tend to write the kind of books that receive the attention of critics. Women tend to write the kind of books that land on the NYT bestseller list more often. Personally, I'd rather be high on the NYT list, and never catch the eye of a critic.

 

[CaroGirl]

What gender bias? Men simply tend to write the kind of books that receive the attention of critics. Women tend to write the kind of books that land on the NYT bestseller list more often. Personally, I'd rather be high on the NYT list, and never catch the eye of a critic.

Do you suggest that books that wind up on the NYT best seller list don't get reviewed?

 

[leahzero]

What gender bias? Men simply tend to write the kind of books that receive the attention of critics. Women tend to write the kind of books that land on the NYT bestseller list more often. Personally, I'd rather be high on the NYT list, and never catch the eye of a critic.

I hope you can see how ridiculous that statement is.

Men and women both write in the categories favored by critics (primarily literary fiction). But it's the male-written lit fic that's recognized and lauded.

Is there something in the male genome that makes male writers gravitate toward literary fiction? Or do you think, perhaps, it has more to do with cultural opportunity, advantage, and inherent bias because the reviewers themselves are predominantly male?

Is being a book reviewer something that's also somehow inherently gendered?

 

[Anne Lyle]

If the majority of reviewers are male (for whatever reason), then it stands to reason that they are going to gravitate towards male authors. Like it or not, men tend to write the kind of books men like, and women write (on average) books that women like. I have a lot more books by women on my shelves, despite the fact that some of my favourite authors are men.

 

[scarletpeaches]

I hope you can see how ridiculous that statement is.

What's ridiculous about it? Isn't that the whole point of this thread, that men get more reviews?

 

[LizzieFriend]

What gender bias? Men simply tend to write the kind of books that receive the attention of critics. Women tend to write the kind of books that land on the NYT bestseller list more often. Personally, I'd rather be high on the NYT list, and never catch the eye of a critic.

Yikes...that's a pretty inflammatory statement. Generally, starting any sentence with " (gender, race, religious group, etc.) tend to..." is a bad idea, unless, of course, your goal is to be inflammatory.

 

[LizzieFriend]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/04/research-male-writers-dominate-books-world
Looks like Jodi Picoult and company were on to something regarding accusations of gender bias by literary critics.

To know what we should take from this research, we'd really need to know the percentage breakdown of the books that were available to the reviewers to be reviewed. If they had 1,000 (hypothetical, obviously) books to choose from that were published that year, and 65% of those were written by men (as in, the same percentage as were reviewed) it wouldn't be that indicative of a bias among reviewers*. If it's closer to 50, though, it's definitely troubling.

Either way, really interesting. Thanks for posting, Leah.

*As for gender bias among publishers, who knows

 

[Phaeal]

What gender bias? Men simply tend to write the kind of books that receive the attention of critics. Women tend to write the kind of books that land on the NYT bestseller list more often. Personally, I'd rather be high on the NYT list, and never catch the eye of a critic.

Hmmm. Per the Feb 13 NYTBL, James Patterson/Michael Ledwidge, Stieg Larsson, Brad Meltzer, Stuart Woods, Tom Clancy/Grant Blackwood, Robert Crais, John Grisham, and Dean Koontz better look in their shorts. They appear to have had spontaneous sex changes.

 

[scarletpeaches]

God help me for defending JAR but he mentioned trends and majorities, not absolutes.

 

[Phaeal]

Quite a few of the names above are perpetual bestsellers. And male. Well, so they claim...

 

[gothicangel]

Personally, I'd rather be high on the NYT list, and never catch the eye of a critic.

Normally I would disagree with JAR, but after what I read today . . .

I was researching a paper on Scottish poet [and respected literary critic at St Andrews University] Robert Crawford, I found an article on the internet which was basically a load of shit. When I got to the autobiographical section I discovered the Glasgow University had refused to publish it, so the author had taken to publishing it online instead.

 

[Plot Device]

Please consider the lack of gender in the following three names:

JK Rowling
CS Lewis
IM Genderless


And after that, please answer me the following.

1) How many male authors use either a gender-switching or gender-obscuring pen name?

2) How many female authors do it?

3) Why does ANYONE do it?

 

[Unimportant]

Men simply tend to write the kind of books that receive the attention of critics.

What kind of books are those?

 

[LizzieFriend]

Please consider the lack of gender in the following three names:

JK Rowling
CS Lewis
IM Genderless


And after that, please answer me the following.

1) How many male authors use either a gender-switching or gender-obscuring pen name?

2) How many female authors do it?

3) Why does ANYONE do it?

Nail/Head.

 

[shaldna]

How about we consider the possibility that, god forbid, the critics pick the best books, and that has absolutely nothing to do with gender, it just so happens that the books they have chosen because they liked them, in the end turned out to be written by men?

As a woman and a writer, I personally find all the whining about how men have it easier and they get more sales and more reviews to be really irritating. If it bothers a woman that much then they know what they need to do - write a better book.

 

[Toothpaste]

shaldna, it's much more complicated than that. And I'm sure you didn't mean it, but do you realise you basically just concluded that men were better writers than women?

I'll try to explain a bit why this is a far more complicated subject than just a numbers game. Let's say, for argument's sake, all women wrote the same kind of books and all men wrote the same kind of books. This is absurd and untrue, but it seems to be a premise people like to work from so why not play with it. The debate then becomes "why are male topics considered more literary and universal and female topics considered small and for girls only?" That is the heart of the issue. Why is it that a book about war considered more literary than one about raising a family? Why is it that a book about male ennui is considered more literary than one about a woman's midlife crisis?

The fact is that the more "feminine" the topic, the less worthy of great acclaim it is seen to be. And why is that? I don't know. But you see it time and time again. Further to the point, why is it when a man writes on a "feminine" topic he gets categorised as either contemporary or literary fiction, but a woman does the same and she's women's lit? And thus we return to the FREEDOM debate.

I'm not sure I can convince you that there is a real gender bias out there (I myself have noticed that whenever a man enters the field of children's books he is hailed and promoted because he is such a rare creature, but when a woman enters the field of say thrillers, her publisher advises she change her name to initials so men won't be reluctant to pick up her book - and yes, I have witnessed these both), especially as you have already defined any such reasoning as "irritating" and "whining". But, still, that is my extremely basic attempt to explain some of the situation. If you'd like to discuss it further and more deeply, I'd be happy to. Just let me know .

 

[LizzieFriend]

shaldna, it's much more complicated than that. And I'm sure you didn't mean it, but do you realise you basically just concluded that men were better writers than women?

I'll try to explain a bit why this is a far more complicated subject than just a numbers game. Let's say, for argument's sake, all women wrote the same kind of books and all men wrote the same kind of books. This is absurd and untrue, but it seems to be a premise people like to work from so why not play with it. The debate then becomes "why are male topics considered more literary and universal and female topics considered small and for girls only?" That is the heart of the issue. Why is it that a book about war considered more literary than one about raising a family? Why is it that a book about male ennui is considered more literary than one about a woman's midlife crisis?

The fact is that the more "feminine" the topic, the less worthy of great acclaim it is seen to be. And why is that? I don't know. But you see it time and time again. Further to the point, why is it when a man writes on a "feminine" topic he gets categorised as either contemporary or literary fiction, but a woman does the same and she's women's lit? And thus we return to the FREEDOM debate.

I'm not sure I can convince you that there is a real gender bias out there (I myself have noticed that whenever a man enters the field of children's books he is hailed and promoted because he is such a rare creature, but when a woman enters the field of say thrillers, her publisher advises she change her name to initials so men won't be reluctant to pick up her book - and yes, I have witnessed these both), especially as you have already defined any such reasoning as "irritating" and "whining". But, still, that is my extremely basic attempt to explain some of the situation. If you'd like to discuss it further and more deeply, I'd be happy to. Just let me know . .

Knock off that hysterical whining!

On a serious note, thank you for summing this up so intelligently. I'll add that this kind of thing--the subconscious classification of feminine things as bad and masculine things as good--is in no way confined to the publishing world. It's an issue, and pretending it doesn't exist--or "writing better books"--isn't going to make it go away.

 

[SPMiller]

We've known this is a serious problem for a while now. What concerns me most is that it doesn't seem to have improved. Plot Device hinted at a common method to avoid the bias: if you're a woman, use your initials, or choose a gender-neutral pen name. This still happens regularly in all the genres I read.

 

[shaldna]

shaldna, it's much more complicated than that. And I'm sure you didn't mean it, but do you realise you basically just concluded that men were better writers than women?

No, I'm pretty sure that I was clear on my point that in this instance it is entirely conceivable that the books chosen were chosen on their own merit and that it had nothing at all to do with gender.

I'm not concluding that men or women are better writers, but simply that we should consider that the books chosen were chosen for other reasons than gender, and that, in this instance, the books chosen happened to be primarily written by men?

Personally I'm sick of all this gender bullshit. Everyone always has a reason or an excuse. 'it's because i'm male/female/irish/black/gay'

how about, just for once, people admit that the reason their book isn't reviewed or doesn't do that well is not because of who or what they are, but simply because the book just wasn't as good as the others on offer. It has nothing to do with gender or anything else.


edit - I do get what you are saying about perceptions, and I understand and fully appreciate that, and I've suffered that myself. But that is a bigger issue that concerns not only the writer and thier ability, but the publisher and how they market the books, and the reader and the bias of the readers.

 

[SPMiller]

Don't narrow your focus too much on what's presented in the OP. It's a little more complicated than that. Consider that the problem may not be with reviewers. They may indeed choose the best books available. But that suggests the problem may lie elsewhere in the process. Could just as easily be agents and acquisitions editors preferring books with a masculine plot and themes. Of course, even that doesn't imply malice or bigotry. In a male-dominated society, masculine novels are sure to sell best. Blind servitude to market forces has consequences. After all, economies are not divorced from the cultures of the societies in and between which they operate.

 

[LizzieFriend]

I'm not concluding that men or women are better writers, but simply that we should consider that the books chosen were chosen for other reasons than gender, and that, in this instance, the books chosen happened to be primarily written by men?

Of course it's theoretically possible that these statistics happened by chance. But given the fact that this trend continues--year after year--even as the pool of available reviewable books continue to change, doesn't it seem pretty obtuse to assume that it's happening by random chance? I'm sure some statistician among us can tell us the statistical probability of this happening randomly, say, twenty years in a row, and I'm sure that probability is...unlikely.

You ask us to allow for the possibility that no gender bias exists--why can't you allow for the possibility that it does, when all evidence points to this conclusion?

Personally I'm sick of all this gender bullshit. Everyone always has a reason or an excuse. 'it's because i'm male/female/irish/black/gay'

how about, just for once, people admit that the reason their book isn't reviewed or doesn't do that well is not because of who or what they are, but simply because the book just wasn't as good as the others on offer. It has nothing to do with gender or anything else.

I completely understand where you're coming from regarding the second paragraph above, but I haven't seen anyone in this thread say this trend had anything to do with their personal success. And dismissing discrimination as a whole (whether by race, gender or sexual orientation) is not something I can support, but that's really a different conversation.

Either way, I'm sure some writers out there blame gender bias for their hardships--and that's likely not a good use of their energy--but that doesn't mean we can't have a measured, intelligent discussion about why gender bias is a problem.

 

[whacko]

Hey Leah,

A survey of the reviewers would be more interesting. How many of them are promoting, sorry, crititiquing, their pal's work? And how many want a good review in return?

Criticism can be an incestuous darling.

Regards

Whacko

 

[Toothpaste]

edit - I do get what you are saying about perceptions, and I understand and fully appreciate that, and I've suffered that myself. But that is a bigger issue that concerns not only the writer and thier ability, but the publisher and how they market the books, and the reader and the bias of the readers.

What I don't understand is why you dismiss all this then? All this goes into gender bias. You are right, there is so much more to just the writer and their ability. That's the whole point. You have the readers who won't read a book written by a woman. The publisher who insists on putting a woman on the front cover of a novel because it is written by a woman even though the main character is a man. The bookstores who insist on shelving any book that is about "women's issues" as women's fiction and not just general commercial fiction. Reviewers aren't exempt from this same bias. This is a very big and very complicated issue. I read an article once by a woman who was a judge with a panel of others on a writing competition. She noticed that very talented women writers would get passed over for slightly less talented men, and asked why. The response she got from her colleagues was that, yes the writing and storytelling was better, but it wasn't as ambitious as the male writing. For some reason "ambition" was seen as a higher form than "quality". Risk taking mattered more than good storytelling. Who makes this decision? Well, if we are going to be stereotypical, risk taking is more associated with men, and most of the judges were male and so they thought that that was a more important quality.

You say it's whining. But what do you do when you consistently don't get the credit you deserve because of that bias about which you wrote? It doesn't matter if you write a "better" book, you still won't get the credit because of who you are and your subject matter. So the only thing to do is to discuss it. To point it out. That's how it works. If people didn't complain about the cover of LIAR being totally white washed, Bloomsbury would never have changed it. Change happens through speaking up, not by quietly trying to conform.

Now yes, some writers suck. I know many female writers who suck. Also many male writers. And many people who suck still think they are being hard done by for whatever reason and like to blame others for their failings. True. But there are also times when a legitimate argument can be made for real discrimination. And to just dismiss all speaking out as one and the same, well that just doesn't make any sense. Treat the instances of real whining as such, and maybe before you go off and think people are just complaining, look into the facts. You clearly agree that this is an existing issue, and a big one at that.

I mean, do you really think I'm whining in all this? Honestly?

 

[SPMiller]

[...] dismissing discrimination as a whole (whether by race, gender or sexual orientation) is not something I can support, but that's really a different conversation.

Is it?