One note–consistently lost in these debates–the PW 10 best is obviously not a list that disregards genre, it’s not as though all ten of the books were novels…and yet every post I read is furious that Atwood, Byatt, Mantel, & Munro weren’t considered one of the top 10 novels. It’s not a list of 10 novels, folks. There are only four fiction titles on the list. Isn’t it plausible that a woman might be excluded from the top 4? I should also note that no one on any of these comment threads ever seem to mention a nonfiction book by a woman.

If you go to the publisher’s weekly page, you’ll find that they have the top 10 FOLLOWED BY the rest of the best broken down by genre. You know what neither list includes a lot of? BIG NAMES. Not only like Atwood, Munro, et al. BUT also like no Roth, Pynchon, Updike. It was a bad year for the big names, people. Most of their books are destined to be regarded as also-rans. The Mantel and the Byatt in particular were poorly reviewed.

Look at the list PW published (top 10 and farther down) and make comparisons. Promote PW’s selections from Best Fiction to Best of the Best. Make PARTICULAR arguments. Because it’s clear that PW not only thought Wolf Hall (Mantel) was a historical novel that they didn’t care about, but that Inherent Vice (Pynchon) was a tired genre riff. Don’t make arguments for books that weren’t in the running. Instead…

…tell me why Jayne Anne Phillips’ Lark and Termite was a better book than Dan Chaon’s Await Your Reply. Or why Yiyun Li’s The Vagrants is a better book than Victor Lavalle’s Big Machine. I have not yet read any of the four–but then neither have you. Otherwise the arguments wouldn’t be so reliant on gender generalities of both dispositions.

While I agree that it’s unlikely that a list of the 10 best works of fiction could plausibly be unbiased and w/o a woman, I think that it’s reasonable that a list of four genuinely could be.

So far, I think the Lorrie Moore was unjustly excluded but I don’t think it’s so clear cut. Perhaps the novel will change my mind as I get further along. I wish the last third of Binnie Kirshenbaum’s too little reviewed The Scenic Route had been as good as the first two thirds–but it wasn’t.

I read fiction by women and men this year, and I have to say I didn’t read a better book of stories than Daniyal Mueenuddin’s. I thought the Geoff Dyer was weird, unusual, and wonderful–and if PW wants to honor that, then I think they’ve got a case. Haven’t read the Lavalle or the Chaon.

We could equally well note that nearly every major literary prize went to a woman. Women don’t need this furor anymore–lumping these remarkable individual authors in a category too narrow to contain them. When Byatt objects to the Orange prize, maybe she’s worth a listen?

Let me repeat, women have won nearly every major literary prize this year. Doesn’t that register? Has anyone noticed? I, for one, don’t think that’s unlikely. But then, I don’t think this list is unlikely either.

The Willa list is an empty exercise–it’s just a list–makes no claims except “2009″ and “woman.” As such, it doesn’t do the authors on it any favors.

“…Bernard Schriever & The Ultimate Weapon”
“Shop Class as Soul Craft”
“Big Machine”
“Deadly Obsession in the Amazon”

Nope, no gender bias at work here.

“Ignoring gender” seems to me suspiciously akin to people who claim they don’t “see” color. It’s there and these editors are clearly making a statement about what norms & subjects make for the “best” literature. They might, if they are so disturbed, question how those norms were determined.

Susan’s response “kicks total ass.”