After the VIDA counts in 2010 and 2011, as well as Jennifer Weiner’s count she released on her blog in January 2012, I wanted to see where things stood for writers of color. Race often gets lost in the gender conversation as if it’s an issue we’ll get to later. I’ve wondered about where race fits into the conversation and who will take up that issue with the same zeal VIDA has approached gender.
If women are underrepresented in certain echelons of publishing, writers of color are likely to face similar issues. As I considered this problem, I had no proof, though, and when it comes to confronting inequities in representation, people want proof. They won’t just take your word that the sky is falling. They need to see the sky shattered, on the ground. And even when you do have proof, people will try to discount your findings. We’ve seen this with birthers and global warming deniers and the like. When I set out to see where things stand in terms of race, I decided I wasn’t going to try to prove anything to anyone. I simply went on a fact-finding mission and found some facts.
These counts are really difficult to execute. A lot of the data compilation requires painstaking work and there are few guarantees of accuracy. There is no centralized database tracking the gender or race of the writers who are published or reviewed in major publications. Most of the data compilation, particularly when it comes to race, is comprised of best approximations.
I tasked my amazing, incredibly thorough graduate assistant, Philip Gallagher, with looking at every book review published in the New York Times in 2011, identifying the race and gender of the reviewed titles’ authors. The project took fourteen weeks, with Philip going at it for about sixteen hours each week because the only way to find out the race of each writer was to research them. Information for some authors was more readily available than others. Some information was simply ambiguous. Some information could not be found. We originally set out to look at several major publications but without an army of volunteers, it will never be possible to compile a dataset on race similar to VIDA’s. It is simply too difficult to identify race without a great deal of effort and even then, it’s hard to know just how accurate that data is.
We looked at 742 books reviewed, across all genres. Of those 742, 655 were written by Caucasian authors (1 transgender writer, 437 men, and 217 women). Thirty-one were written by Africans or African Americans (21 men, 10 women), 9 were written by Hispanic authors (8 men, 1 woman), 33 by Asian, Asian-American or South Asian writers (19 men, 14 women), 8 by Middle Eastern writers (5 men, 3 women) and 6 were books written by writers whose racial background we were simply unable to identify.
The numbers are depressing but I cannot say I am shocked. The numbers reflect the overall trend in publishing where the majority of books published are written by white writers.
There’s a lot that’s incomplete about the data. Writers were grouped into rather broad racial and ethnic categories. The New York Times is only one publication, though certainly, it is one of the preeminent book review outlets. We only looked at one year. Without data about how many books were published by writers, across race, it’s hard to know if the numbers are proportionate or not.
Still.
The numbers are grim. Nearly 90% of the books reviewed by The New York Times are written by white writers. That is not even remotely reflective of the racial makeup of this country, where 72% of the population, according to the 2010 census, is white. We know that far more than 81 books were published by writers of color in 2011. You don’t really need other datasets to see this rather glaring imbalance.
These days, it is difficult for any writer to get a book published. We’re all clawing. However, if you are a writer of color, not only do you face a steeper climb getting your book published, you face an even more arduous journey if you want that book to receive critical attention. It shouldn’t be this way. Writers deserve that same fighting chance regardless of who they are but here we are, talking about the same old thing—these institutional biases that even by a count of 2011 data, remain deeply ingrained.
I don’t know how to solve this problem or what to do with this information. I’m not riled up. I’m informed. I like seeing some numbers, having some sense of the scope of a problem. I like knowing where things stand. Hopefully these numbers will encourage review outlets to be more inclusive in reviewing books—considering race, gender and let us not forget sexuality or other brands of difference—rather than treating diversity as a compartmentalized issue where we can only focus on one kind of inequity at a time. Such mindfulness is important. If we want to encourage people to be better, broader readers, that effort starts by giving readers a better, broader selection of books to choose from.
***
[Editor’s Note: We’ve published this article by Roxane Gay because we think it is important information. We do this knowing that the topics she covers are ones in which The Rumpus has vast room for improvement as well. We strive to better ourselves every day.]
67 responses
Ideally, the ratio should of course reflect the racial makeup of this country.
But that assumes publishers are giving book deals at that idealized rate. They aren’t. The better comparison would be: # of non-white authors whose books were reviewed by the Times in 2010 vs. # of non-white authors who published new books in 2010.
I’m not justifying the imbalance for the Times, but I think blame lies with the entire industry, not just one newspaper.
Oh definitely, Nick. I wasn’t assigning blame. I did some fact finding and shared what I found. As I’ve written in other essays, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to diversity.
Huge appreciation to you and Philip for the work you’ve done here Roxane. The graphic looks a lot like a giant PacMan throwing its head back and swallowing up the rest of the pie, which is exactly how the numbers feel. As with the VIDA count, I wonder what editors will do to balance the representation–and truly believe that there is a market for books that don’t fit the narrow mold. I want to read them.
This isn’t a difficult problem to solve. Especially on sites like the Rumpus, The Millions, etc… there are so many writers of color. So let them write. Choose a different perspective. Stop being so nepotistic. Make more of an effort to find them. We’re all waiting for a shot.
A related question: Who is actually finding books to read from the TBR anymore? I’m certainly not. Is anyone? Are *they* all old white men?
I’m not sure what to do about this troubling information either. Regardless, thank you Roxane Gay and Philip Gallagher for doing this research and bringing it to people’s attention. As always, I appreciate that you bring attention and thoughtfulness to matters of race and gender in publishing, when so many others either don’t want to have the conversation at all or have nothing but riled up anger.
I suspect the ratio is far better among self-published writers on Smashwords, Amazon and other ebook venues. The publishing world is going through dramatic changes as ebook sales increase every year. Via createspace you can also have a paper copy available for sale online. You don’t have to wait to be published by old white guys anymore.
Do you have the data for the differences between foreign and american writers? Not that it would be any better to be only reviewing European books and ignoring the rest of the world, but I imagine that the numbers might be slightly better if we only looked at just American authors. It really seems that only European authors and like Murakami get mainstream reviews in the US.
L, no, we don’t have that data. We tried to keep our focus manageable.
Rachel, I still read the TBR and it’s still a fairly important measure within the industry.
Tapati, self-publishing a great option for people who want to do it, but it would still be useful for the system to change. I have zero interest in self-publishing for my own books. I run a small press and it’s way too much work.
NKT, if you want your shot… take it. The Rumpus accepts submissions at http://therumpus.submishmash.com. I look forward to reading your work.
I agree with you, Roxanne, what to do with this information? I think that this is a deeper issue than skewed statistics. Statistics will always be skewed, but at least they aren’t nonexistent. The pie could be whole & unsliced. Anyone can submit a manuscript &, hopefully, get published. The game is already “fair” & a publisher shouldn’t feel they have to publish a book from everyone across the spectrum just to make things look right. Ultimately, the statistics should vary each year, but of course we know that presently is not the case.
I also agree with the need for a broad selection of books, but what does that really mean? There are a variety of genres & subjects out there written by a variety of people. Unless we are continuing to compartmentalize everyone & ask that black authors write about being black, homosexual writers write about being homosexual & so on. Now, if that is what I want to read I will actively seek it out. If I want to read some generic fiction I’m checking out the synopsis, not the author photo. But I have been accused of living in my own world, judging writing on its own merit & not who held the pen. Something to consider is that all groups are not educated, approached or encouraged in the same way. Perhaps when we can make that happen we’ll see different figures.
I think the big key to using this information is what you said in the end Roxane. People (including and perhaps most importantly) people in positions to publish others, really need to learn to read with bigger eyes.
My comment was here, then disappeared? And I apologize, initially I misspelled your name, Roxane.
—
I agree with you, Roxane, what to do with this information? I think that this is a deeper issue than skewed statistics. Statistics will always be skewed, but at least they aren’t nonexistent. The pie could be whole & unsliced. Anyone can submit a manuscript &, hopefully, get published. The game is already “fair” & a publisher shouldn’t feel they have to publish a book from everyone across the spectrum just to make things look right. Ultimately, the statistics should vary each year, but of course we know that presently is not the case.
I also agree with the need for a broad selection of books, but what does that really mean? There are a variety of genres & subjects out there written by a variety of people. Unless we are continuing to compartmentalize everyone & ask that black authors write about being black, homosexual writers write about being homosexual & so on. Now, if that is what I want to read I will actively seek it out. If I want to read some generic fiction I’m checking out the synopsis, not the author photo. But I have been accused of living in my own world, judging writing on its own merit & not who held the pen. Something to consider is that all groups are not educated, approached or encouraged in the same way. Perhaps when we can make that happen we’ll see different figures.
Certainly we should all hope for a society where all writers, of all backgrounds, are given a fair chance. However, the data here is significantly incomplete. Without knowing whether the percentages listed here for the NYTimes are better or worse than the percentages for all published books, it’s impossible to know how to evaluate the Times. For all we know, the NYT percentages may in fact be much better than those of publishers, in which case, the Times should be praised.
ATB, no one is even remotely suggesting writers compartmentalize. This isn’t about content, it’s about writers. A diverse group of writers will naturally create a diverse group of content regardless of what they choose to write about. As for what to do, hopefully conversations like these will lead to solutions.
Thomas, perhaps. I encourage someone to seek out that data. I make it crystal clear that this data is incomplete.
It makes me wonder how many editors are giving an equal consideration at non-white writers (or at least writers without an ethnic surname or an author photo) so that they can have the chance to be noticed by reviewers of major publications. I hope also that agents don’t always urge non-white writers to write about “the struggles” of being a minority (expectations that make me cringe). Which now reminds me of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s 2009 TED Talks on ‘The Danger of the Single Story’. So many factors to consider; indeed a complex but fascinating study. I hope it continues. Any way we your readers can help?
Where are the aboriginal writers?
Susan, that’s a good question. We did not find any in the titles we looked at.
I want to see studies comparing disabled with non-disabled and disabled women with disabled men. In other fields of work the percentage of disabled is lower, with a higher percentage of disabled unemployed. The percentage of disabled women is lower than disabled men as employment is seen as less necessary for disabled women than for men. Then do studies for disabled of various cultures.
I thought this was interesting but I have a question – what about Jewish authors? Are they considered ‘Caucasian’ or ‘middle eastern’ or what? With so many great Jewish authors around i was somewhat surprised by their apparent absence.
Roxane–I admire the way you have explained the limits of your research. It’s important to show how hard fact finding is. But it’s a start. Others could now fill in the gaps, explore the areas you and your assistant weren’t able to explore under your constraints. Interpretations of the data and remedies are many and in a way local. I like the idea of everyone broadening what they read and thinking about every choice they make. Thank you.
for what it’s worth – the NYT numbers don’t reflect the makeup of our country, but they totally reflect the makeup of the writing classes I took at college.
I took writing classes for four years at a fairly diverse public college; I’m not white, and I was tremendously in the minority in every writing class.
I realize that sample size limits the meaningfulness of personal experience, but at least from what I’ve seen, there’s more to this story than “The New York Times favors white writers”.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s wonderful talk, which is here — http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html — contains the answer to the question of what to do, and also suggests that, as useful as it is to categorize writers by gender, race, or some other measure, and report their representation in magazines, it might be more liberating to focus our attention on the kinds of stories we allow ourselves to hear. As Adichie says, “When we reject the single story, when we reject the idea that there is ever a single story about a place, we regain a kind of paradise.”
this is hardly evidence. let’s talk about the low number of black/hispanic fiction/non-fiction writers submitting manuscripts. then let’s talk about the low number of black/hispanic writers in MFA programs. then, let’s talk about the fact that MFA programs are an extension of economic privilege, and that most first-book publishing contracts are for under $5K for (several) years of (unfunded) work, and that far fewer blacks/hispanics than caucasians have family money.
does this data reveal a problem with long-standing bias in elite publishing? obviously not. but there is a structural impediment in place that makes writing/publishing a field that has major economic barriers to entry — something that is a much harder hurdle for blacks, latinos, new americans, etc.
I appreciate this thoughtful discussion and the tremendous amount of work that went into the NYT study. You gotta start somewhere. My question would be, how do you address the sources of institionalized white privilege? they must be deeply complex and subtle. Not to mention that book selections for review involve a lot of subjectivity.
How could the Times be influenced to change?
Amro, this is information. Interpret it as you will.
i would attribute the data solely to barriers to entry; having worked in publishing, i have seen a much stronger bias towards including minority or female authors because “damn it, there are minority and female readers who don’t want another story/article written by a white man.”
the NYT acts as a content aggregator — it’s not the place where new authors break out, it’s more like where the “best” (crowdsourcing mechanism: partly most published, partly critical acceptance) material is gathered. any bias in the racial makeup of general submissions to literary publishing will be exactly replicated in the NYT aggregate/review process, and i think the racial makeup of literary submissions is heavily white for the barriers to entry i described above.
less data-analysis issues from me, more constructive criticism: the data shine a light on enormous barriers to entry to the profession of writing — which is notoriously low-/unpaid and competitive. the solution is more scholarships, more TA-ships, more low-cost programs at the MFA level.
Luke, they were considered Caucasian here because going more specific there was beyond our resources.
Roxane, many thanks to you and Philip Gallagher for compiling this information and for presenting it in a forthright manner. The Rumpus: thank you so much for running it–and I *really* appreciate your editor’s note.
Thank you, Philip and Roxane, for all your hard work! Very interesting. I definitely agree that allowing–and promoting–a diverse canon of contemporary writers is a great way to not only further social justice and understanding, but allow for a more varied and enjoyable reading experience, as well.
One thought I had while reading this is that it’s also worth considering economic class when it comes to book reviews. I say that as a straight white male writer who happened to grow up without much-needed health insurance and knows what it’s like to live off ramen noodles and tap water–though I’d be remiss if I didn’t add the all-important qualifier that obviously, we shouldn’t publish “poor” writers because they’re poor, or refuse to read “rich” writers because they’re rich; we should read and promote good writing because it’s good writing while, whenever possible, seeking to make sure that we’re resisting our own natural inclination to confine ourselves solely to the group with which we most easily identify.
Of course, saying that is easy. Implementing it is hard. For instance, I have to confess that I probably don’t read as many writers of different racial or social backgrounds as I should; then again, I wouldn’t say that would I do read constitutes wasted time (not that you’re saying that, Roxane). Which begs the question, I think, of whether book reviewers can/should simply review whatever they happen to read, with all the natural inherent biases, or whether they have a greater obligation than other readers/writers to actively pursue a more diverse reading list by virtue of their responsibility as reviewers. I’m inclined toward the latter but as others have pointed out, there are already so many “starving artists” fighting for much-deserved readership. Tricky business.
Anyway, thanks again for the information! I appreciate the chance to share my thoughts. This issue is definitely worthy of further discussion and much consideration.
Michael, I agree very much about examining class but logistically? That is an enormous undertaking. How on earth can we figure out class, even from Google-enabled research? It would require a level of research beyond the resources of almost any organization so realistically, someone would probably need to work from a sample, say one month of reviews, one genre, and then how useful is that data? Hopefully someone takes this up and has a better idea of how to approach it. What I notice in these comments is lots of people suggesting other sets of data and I agree, all this information is needed. It’s a question of time and resources and there’s little of that to go around.
It should go without saying that presenting this kind of information is not suggesting a tokenistic approach. The very last thing I would ever suggest is publishing or reading someone solely based on race, gender, class, or sexuality. When people say this sort of thing, it’s a little frustrating because the implication is that something is either “good” or written by someone from an underrepresented group. When I’m thinking about these issues, excellence is implied. We’re going beyond that. How do we ensure that more good writing from a diverse group of people is being published, read, and reviewed? That is the question.
Reviewers, particularly reviewers for major publications, have a responsibility to read diversely because they’re not reading for pleasure. They’re reading as tastemakers. They’re reading for the public as much as they might be reading for themselves. They don’t have to love what they read but surely they have to discuss a diverse range of books with their readers? Or, if the responsibility lies elsewhere, it lies with review editors who can ensure diversity by assigning books from a diverse range of writers. Regardless, someone has to carry that responsibility.
Hi, Roxane. Thank you for your reply! I think we’re basically in agreement here, especially about reviewers for major publications who are employed to be “tastemakers,” not to mention the editors overseeing said reviewers. This reminds me of that recent graphic making its way around Facebook pointing out that when it comes to women’s reproductive issues, newspapers almost never quote the opinions of WOMEN! Doesn’t mean that all the men they do quote are sexist or unqualified, but it does reflect a troubling discrepancy of which people (especially editors) should be aware.
I’d also add that this is an issue that even sporadic, casual book reviewers like myself should bear in mind, since there’s always room for improvement.
Regarding additional statistical information, I hope my comments didn’t come across as too critical! I don’t think any one person could realistically hope to assemble the huge, ultra-complicated body of data that we’re all alternately suggesting. Also, I don’t think these suggestions are pointing out a failing in your detailed and intriguing study, so much as a reflection of us largely liberal, fellow book-nerds thinking out loud. 🙂
Thanks again for your thought-provoking essay!
Hi Michael, I very much appreciated your comments. I was just sharing the thoughts your comments raised, thinking aloud, really.
Thank you for this article. It was not too long ago that every day we were getting an article or a response to one where women were getting the chance to voice their thoughts on gender discrepancies in some pretty major publications. It’s a heated debate covered from many sides (and it should be), but minority authors, unlike woman authors, struggle getting the attention of major agents and editors. Many people of color and homosexuals cannot get into the bookstores, never mind the second shelf under male authors.
There is some subtext to the gender debate that I feel goes unacknowledged: it is primarily straight white women looking for respect from their male counterparts. Minority women and lesbian women are not having the same success in proportional numbers. I wish some of the articles I read from the well-off straight, white women had acknowledged this on behalf of their minority gender peers.
I am a black author who has recently decided to self-publish my novel after being rejected countless times. It is often advised that if you get so many rejections to consider the novel is not good enough. Maybe if I had written about the decay of a midwestern heterosexual marriage (or at least a slave narrative) I could see that. But the truth is, I don’t know. Like you pointed out, it seems an uphill battle in the first place, especially for a first time author of color. So I will see what happens after I self-publish and people can tell me whether or not my work has the literary merit to deserve publication.
The only solution, perfect or not, is that the issue gets attention. If agents and publishers get put under the microscope, change will happen; and hopefully the press generated will bring talented racial and sexual minorities into the spotlight. Also though it is on talented minority writers to come forward, step into the mainstream, with their best work in hand, to not be discouraged, but keep pounding on the doors until they are let in.
It’s incredible timing, reading this article hours after arriving back in California from New York City. I was there to attend the International Latino Book Awards, timed with BEA. My book, “Latinnovating: Green American Jobs and the Latinos Creating Them” was honored by several distinguished judges with:
*1st Place, Best Business Book
*1st Place, Best Nonfiction eBook
*2nd Place, Best Nonfiction Young Adult Book
Yes, it was published by small press in San Francisco. Yes, we sent a review copy per guidelines to the NYT Book Review four months ahead of publication. Did we expect to get reviewed? No. Did we try? Yes. If we put books in their lap and they choose not to review, what else is there to do? I’m happy to have received the recognition from the publishers, editors, Pulitzer prize winners who looked at the works of many Latino authors for this event. The NYT needs to look at Census data and realize how quickly the demographics are changing, how quickly American consumers are changing. Right now, this data is making them look extremely out of touch, from where I sit. Thanks for doing the work and exposing the reality.
Graciela Tiscareno-Sato
Hi Roxanne,
I would be interested to know how many of the writers reviewing books are white. I assume that the books to be reviewed are chosen first, but I would also think that diversity among reviewers would be an improvement.
I forgot to add: Ultimately, I hope everyone works to open doors for one another. I hope the gender, racial, sexual debates find a place of balance and co-existence and each group helps one another and creates a powerful synergy. If the women succeeding now help open doors for other women and minorities, and the minorities succeeding now open doors for other minorities and women, then it can only bolster efforts all around. Everyone seems too compartmentalized. That’s why it was so great to see the NAACP officially endorse gay marriage.
Roxane, I agree that the lack of minority writers in publishing is the result of racism, but I’d like to point out this is deeply rooted, and not endemic to the publishing industry, which I think fairly evaluates the material they publish, for the most part.
I think this would be very interesting if you did the same poll with all the writers that are being published in lit mags. Simply by going to my Facebook account and seeing how many acquaintances I have that are writers, and their ethnicity, I see it’s parallel to VIDA counts, more or less. Why?
In Major League Baseball there is a trend where black players are rarely American. This is disproportionate, and journalists have tried to analyze this. It’s not racism, per se, but talent and interest. Fifty years ago blacks played baseball, but now they focus on football and basketball.
With writing it is different. Minorities must battle inequities in education and income and health, and these privileges correlate with the opportunity to write. There are exceptions. Still, the editors at Mid-American or Southeast or Hayden’s Ferry Review have the same problems as those at The New Yorker: the majority of writers that turn in quality writing comes from those who have access to privilege. But these editors are not racist.
19th Century writing had so few ethnic American writers, and this trend increased over time, it’s still not there yet, but as income trends change, so will racial proportion in writing.
I think, as women are dominating universities, with over 60% enrollment, that they will one day take over the majority of power in writing. Not yet, but it will happen.
Caleb,
I think you’re partially correct and I do agree with a lot of what you said. But here’s where I have a problem with your passage. It implies that there are not a lot of minority writers, that the content doesn’t exist and so therefore that’s a good reason 90% of what they review is from white writers.
That is false and it’s the same thinking as “We can’t find any (women, Latinos, blacks, etc) qualified to serve on Fortune 500 boards.” The answer is that we’re not hanging out in the same places you do and you’re not looking for us. Here’s a long list of finalists for last week’s International Latino Book Awards in New York: https://www.box.com/s/c7cf420c7c86e32aea3e
How many even were submitted for review by NYT? Well I know of at least one. 🙂 And this list in of itself is simply a list of those who heard about the awards…there are many thousands others who published in 2011.
The issue really is found right here in the NY Times Book Review guidelines FAQ “…we only review books published in the United States and available through general-interest bookstores.” (source: http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/site/books/books.html?ref=books#booksq02)
To have “book in a bookstore” criteria cuts out just about anyone w/o an agent, a major publisher, etc all those dinosaur-ish things associated with the old way of doing things. Small publishers like us had very little chance in hell of getting reviewed by NYT 4 months ahead of launch because of the barriers to entry into the world of book distribution (which we have been able to secure after we proved our marketing.) So when you think about it that way, your comments are maybe correct about it not having anything to do with racism but it’s got everything to do about the status quo club and their interest in keeping it as is. Call it want you want. With all those hoops an author is supposed to jump through to ever even submit for review,….well I think you get my point.
Graciela
Caleb-
You wrote, “the majority of writers that turn in quality writing comes from those who have access to privilege.” I think it’s incorrect to equate privilege with quality. You’re connecting a fairly objective thing (privilege) with a highly subjective thing (quality writing). How is that supposed to be determined? I’ll agree that privilege results in opportunity, but a writer’s level of quality lies in different sources.
Graciela covered my other problem with your argument, that NYT is part of a system that doesn’t focus on minority authors. It’s not that they don’t exist, rather they aren’t included.
I’d also be interested to see these statistics in lit-mags. That sounds like a job for Duotrope.
Thanks for this Roxane and Philip. It obviously represents a lot of legwork. Or googlework, as it is.
-William
Graciela’s comment clarified the situation for me! As a racial “insider’ it’s hard to see outside my own perspective. Thanks!
Hi Roxane,
A couple of points:
1) Does your research compare the number of non-white authors reviewed to the number of non-white authors published? That would go a long way toward putting this disparity into context.
2) Authors* of all ethnicities and genders need to recognize a shift in the publishing paradigm. For the majority of publishing history, an author had to gain the approval of professors, publishers, book reviewers. Now, authors have the ability to publish to the web and distribute their work as electronic books.
An author no longer needs the golden imprimatur of the literary guard. If the New York Times doesn’t review your work, so what. Simply write, publish online, and let your audience grant the ultimate seal of approval.
Noah
Founder|Photographer|Essayist
http://thepeopleofdetroit.com
*feel free to substitute “creatives” for “authors” – I think this applies broadly to people who create art.
Hi Noah. Your first question is already answered in the essay. Self publishing is not the solution to deeply embedded institutional racism in publishing. Yes, people can self-publish but there’s ample evidence that very few people achieve any kind of meaningful success. If all you want is to be published, sure you can put in that work, and be in control of your creative production. Many people, myself included, have no interest in that. I run a press and edit a magazine. When my books are published, I prefer to let other people do all that work. It’s exhausting. Also, one needs a lot of help to find an audience to get some kind of seal of approval. You cannot simply self-publish and hope that because you’re great, your greatness will be discovered. That doesn’t even happen in mainstream publishing. Finally, while self-publishing is a good alternative for some writers, going outside of the system lets publishing off the hook. That may be one alternative, but another alternative has to be that the system changes.
This post:
http://www.book-brats.com/ya-mass-media-white-america/
Has many stats and arguments that I thought were similar to the points you made here. It has great answers to common misconceptions like “It’s not up to white writers. People of Color just aren’t trying hard enough to get their work published.”
And, “PoC should write more books, if they want representation.”
Excerpt of answer: “Do people really think that people of color don’t write too? This is an issue because the gatekeepers AKA the agents, and publishers are less likely to sign writers of color.”
Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Okay, let’s examine that racially biased magazine where Roxane got her start – Pank!
Unoffical Facebook study of writers in May 2012 issue of Pank – Took 16 minutes, not 16 hours. I just looked at Facebook photos and read bios on Pank to come up with this data. If a person looked white, they were white (Sorry, Elizabeth Warrens, you’re white, not Cherokee despite your 1/32 Native American heritage):
Ryan Bradford – White
Kristi DeMeester – White
Gary Dop – White
Ashley Inguanta – No estoy cierto, pero me atrevÃa de decir que, del blog, su cuento y su sobrenombre, yo pienso que ella es latina. Ashley is dark as myself, though, and I’d say culturally I’m American and human, not Persian. I’ll count her as Latina.
Neal Kitterlin – White
Ryan Sharp – White but possibly dating a black woman.
Kenton K. Yee – Even though he’s not on Facebook, I’ll go out on a limb and say Asian.
Anderson Holderness – Not on Facebook
Georgia Bellas – White (Georgia Bellas on Facebook goes to Harvard, Georgia’s bio in Pank says she lives in Mass.)
Jaclyn Waterson – Not on Facebook
Hillary Walker – Inconclusive
Natasha Tripney – White
Amanda Smelz – Not on Facebook
Suzanne Richardson – Inconclusive, I’d guess she’s female.
Laura Kochman – White
Annie Hartnett – White
Kate Folk – White
Keith Dunlap – Inconclusive
Elizabeth Cantwell – White
A.M. Brand – Inconclusive
Oliver Bendorf – White
21 – Pank contributors of these 20 of them are gender conclusive and 14 are race conclusive, they’re all human, but if you keep track of this shit, here’s how it goes in the race and gender pie chart:
12 White = 86%
1 Asian = 7%
1 Latina = 7%
Pie graph that, you racist Pank magazine editors.
Gender pie:
8 Male = 40%
12 Female = 60%
Obviously, Pank thinks women are superior, as do I, sexist bastard that I am.
William & Graciela, your points are well taken, but if NYT or other venues focus on the result of racism rather than the cause, it’s just poorly placed affirmative action. Focus on the roots, the history that causes wealth not evenly distributed, and then help those who do not have the benefits of this.
Caleb,
LOVE the sarcasm but let me throw a wrench in your fruit salad (as in apples and oranges.) Latino/a is not a race (like White or Black or Asian.) Latino denotes an ethnic group. I am a white Latina, married to a Japanese man, we have Asian Latino kids. It’s almost certainly not about race at the NYT…I’m sure it’s about process, institutionalized thinking, etc. Watch HuffPost this week for a piece I wrote to address this.:-)
Caleb, perhaps you haven’t commented on the Rumpus a lot, but we value a comments section that is a tad more civil than your heavy sarcasm allows. To paraphrase one of the greatest editors on the internet, perhaps it’s time for you to reconsider the persona you are using here and meditate on the difficulty of communicating warmly and humanly in a text-only environment.
The difficulty of conversations like these is that people seem to knee-jerk to a demand that authors like Roxane justify their interest in this issue, exhausting them with repeated requests that they explain themselves. The numbers speak rather bluntly and I can see why some people feel a little defensive about it. But there is a different between asking questions out of genuine interest and concern, and arriving to a discussion with a large arsenal of combative sarcasm. Let’s do better, as a start, by refusing to indulge that latter tactic any further.
Caleb, you think you’re making some kind of point but you’re not. The data you came up with is not the kind of data we searched out because we were going for accuracy rather than obtuse sarcasm. We also looked at an entire year. We have work to do, like all literary magazines, but we’re doing pretty damn well where race is concerned. You also have no clue where I got my start. I appreciate your willingness to engage but the tenor of your engagement is such that I have nothing more to say.
As a white person, I admit that the responses of some white people to discussions of race have intimidated me into silence. They are so sure of themselves: I am always looking at nuances. White privilege blinds us to the realities of those who don’t share it. They in their blindness lash out–I in my blindness don’t know what to say, yet I know the reality is far more complex than the simplistic answers of privilege. I am learning to dig deeper and stand my ground. Thank you, Roxane, for opening…well, the first word that comes to mind is “wound,” and I think in many ways it’s accurate. Thank you for opening up this wound. White privilege hurts all of us, even those of us who benefit from it.
In 16 minutes of meticulous research I used “Latina” in want of a better term, and “start” instead of “early days.” But that changes little.
Graciela – Gracias por su ayuda. ¿Latino o no? En serio, no se importa, vamos al grano. Yo vive en América do Sur, Brasil y Argentina, por dos años. Hay muchos personas allá de varias grupos étnicas, por cierto, tú tienes razón. Si mi pesquisa no es cien por ciento al punto, no me importo, es una broma. ¿Comprende?
Michelle – Not only have I commented at The Rumpus, I’ve written book reviews and interviews here. I disagree with Roxane’s preachy & surface examination at this literary “agree-fest.†If you dislike sarcasm why don’t you go hug yourself? But don’t be a writer and don’t have a blog where people share opinions and disagree. You should just start a “literary agreefest” instead and tell each other how you’re saving the world.
Roxane – Love ya!
Hmm, I see I’ve written Portuñol, mixing a little Portuguese with mi Español. Anyway, I’d like to add a couple thoughts. Yesterday I’m listening to Tony Trupiano sit in for Ed Schulz on Progressive Radio, and he says that “White America hates Barack because he’s black” and that “most White Republicans are racist” and that people don’t like him because he tells the truth. Who’s he speaking to? What “white†person eats this up? What “ethnic†person eats this up?
Thing is, racists are no longer the realm of just white or black, the black “New Black Panther Party” is as racist as the white “KKK.” Yes, there’s a difference between oppressed and oppressor, those with privilege and those without. US history’s tragedy has been perpetrated by whites, but things have change, people evolve, we’re all part of the human race. Now the New Black Panthers talk about hanging “crackers.”
To simplify race by urging publishers to make concerted efforts to dig out minority writers is not the solution. The discrepancy is the result and not the cause, which is deep seated in human culture, US culture, poverty, and opportunity. Economic disparity is the key. This division exacerbates racist attitudes.
I guess I object to Tony Trupiano’s use of “most.†Tony doesn’t offer solutions, he exploits a problem, and Roxane does the same thing here as she did earlier in writing her “White History Day” piece or whatever it is. The Rumpus bubble or academia might be a place for such screeds, but they don’t offer solutions.
The deliciousness of sarcasm may not have been the wisest form of engagement (but it sure is fun!), especially here, but that was my attempt at trying to provoke and push against what I felt to be a surface examination of a serious problem.
Amory, thanks for sharing that link. Great stuff there. It’s a frustrating myth, we can even see here in these comments, that POC aren’t writing. They are, and prolifically, despite many of the institutional biases that might indicate otherwise. These conversations are not about dreaming up writers of color that don’t exist. The continued frustration is that these writers are out there and go ignored year after year after year. Gatekeepers are generally concerned with the bottom line and so they might be more cautious about signing writers of color because they too know the hurdles these writers will face on the path to critical and/or commercial success. It’s a challenge for anyone to get an agent though, and that’s the other complication here. Publishing is just a demanding field and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. What I take issue with are the unnecessary demands placed upon certain kinds of writers as well as the pervasive myth of scarcity when it comes to talented writers of color.
Surely the other key statistic that is needed is the ethnic breakup of the New York Times’s readers? If they are predominantly white, then the paper is just catering to it’s target audience. And perhaps socio-economic background is an even better predictor.
In America (and most diverse countries) we often hold the majority community to higher standards than the minority communities. This is understandable, but it runs the risks backfiring if the majority community realizes that the minorities they have been encouraged to assimilate remain parochial and inward-looking.
Another version of this is: if you have a problem with the New York Times, read a different newspaper, or start your own!
Here’s what you inspired me to do Roxane: “Open Letter to the New York Times Book Review” in the Huffington Post. Things don’t ever change unless they are questioned, right? So let’s keep questioning! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graciela-tiscarenosato/open-letter-to-the-new-yo_b_1584923.html
I think the pre-requisites that Graciela pointed out are important.
1) It must be published in the United States
– Americans miss out on amazing literary experiences that other countries have. The numbers seem to change, but for safety’s sake, 3% of books published in America come from outside the states. That is dismal and I’m not sure why we’re not disappointed by that sort of institutionalized censorship.
2) It must be sold in a general interest bookshop
I don’t mean to disagree with any of the valid points already stated by the author and commenters, but instead add one other point. Perhaps one portion of responsibility can and should be given to booksellers who do little to promote non-white American work on their shelves. I’ve worked at multiple bookshops and found it a battle to face out or give decent display to international and non-white works. The owners can’t blame what publishing companies promote, either, since they are given a wide arrange of books and galleys that they ignore for what they know they can sell with little effort. Anyone can send their self-published book to a bookshop for review and to sell, which many do, including the marginalized groups we’re discussing here.
We consumers and readers might not have much say on which books are reviewed, but we can ask out local bookshops to better represent our community if they want our business. And then we, as readers and consumers, have the responsibility to purchase these books. I’m not sure we can change these numbers any other way.
It’s good to be discouraged by these numbers and it is good to be informed. It seems futile to me to ask reviewers – or anyone – to change his or her behavior without changing ours. Sometimes it seems to me that the way we speak about things lends itself to a trickle-down theory of responsibility – once those at the top modify their behavior, the rest will follow. It isn’t true economically and I don’t think it’s true here, either. The books are out there to buy and if you don’t see them on the shelf, ask your local bookseller to order it. Bookshops want your business and they will respond to consumer demand.
As are so many things in our consumer culture, it’s really about the money, and it is our money that they want. If we want a wider array of authorship, then that is what we should spend our money on. Anything less is pure talk that they don’t have to listen to.
I wonder how the definition of race is described by the author. It is intriguing that 6 books were authored “by writers whose racial background we were simply unable to identify.” I ask because where I live in Trinidad and Tobago, race is in our face, but miscegenation has made for a skin and racial feature palette all over the spectrum. I would be interested in a race definition of a writer like VS Naipaul (The Masque of Africa). Born in Trinidad of Indian forebears, he lives in the UK. The listed definitions speak of hyphenated Americans as if the US is the centre, and definitions must relate to a US locus. Diasporic persons would fit where? Black Caribbeans are what? Mixed race or biracial Caribbeans (dark skinned with long wavy hair) like writer Elizabeth Nunez (Boundaries) would be defined as what?
Hi Roxane: Happy to see this line of conversation going on.
Another important issue is not the sheer amount of coverage but the type of coverage authors of various ethnic, racial, and national backgrounds get. As part of my PhD thesis, I looked at what critics (mostly NYT) were writing about “ethnic authors”. Data is from 265 reviews, you can find the article online by googling: “reading difference chong”
Love to hear your thoughts!
Yeah, defining race can be tricky, but the point and result of this study is barenaked true. The book review, the NY Times in general, is exclusive and consciously so. There is a place to discuss the nouns (White, Caucasian, Black …) which can, sometimes, serve as sleight to distract us from a basic meanness, but Roxane Gay offers up a verity (let’s call it) beyond debate. The discrimination is ongoing and readers who don’t have the awareness to question what’s presented to them are cheated of exposure to the world AS IT IS, not as the Times chooses.
Ah. Well then. I’ve been trying to get back to blogging. I appreciate the impetus. “Thanks to Roxane Gay for Adding a Few Years to My Life” http://my3000lovingarms.blogspot.com/2012/06/thanks-to-roxane-gay-for-adding-few.html
Am I the only one who finds this information not very disturbing? Why isn’t anyone here asking what the racial make-up of book *readers* are? The fact is most readers of book literature are white. It would be nice for all races to take an interest in the experiences of others, but please don’t soak this with white liberal guilt and say it’s “sad” that this is not the case. When the book buying and reading public becomes more diverse, so will the reviews in the TBR, hardly the only definitive source of book publishing data, by the way.
Is there a way to get the names of the “minority” authors counted in survey of NYT Book Review? I live on the West Coast, and my local libraries (out in the middle of nowhere) don’t get it–tho when I worked at a Borders in Los Angeles, copies of it and LA Times Book Reviews were kept at information desk. I’m guessing the one Latina reviewed was probably Esmerelda Santiago, author of CONQUISTADORA (which I’ve read, along with her first two autobiographical books). Most of the people who’ve read this thread would likely be interested in reading some of those titles, and promoting minority authors whose work is relatively easy to find copies of. Increasing popularity of those writers could help publishers to become more open to giving minority authors a chance to be published–and encourage aspiring authors who belong to a minority to pursue their dreams.
@ Allen Alan: Which came first, the lack of diversity in the reading public, or the lack of diversity in the books which are deemed meritorious and worthy of review?
You need to think about this harder.
If you think the gender and color gaps are bad, imagine how few women with vision loss are being published or reviewed. I’m sorry to say that our minority/social justice issues are rarely mentioned.
I’m joining this party pretty late (via VIDA’s 2013 count), but thanks for doing this, Roxane. I had wondered the same thing, and once I get my mag’s new issue ready, I’m going to a full-on count for our issues.
A question though–and one that doesn’t detract from your overall point one whit–where did you get the stat that 72 percent of the population is white? The 2010 Census has it 78.
Again, that’s not a substantive criticism; I enjoyed the piece quite a bit. I’m just wondering if the Census has different totals listed, which would be odd.
Here’s the Census page where I got the data: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
I needed to see this article today.
I am a Black woman, who is publishing a book about Race, Digital Creativity and Pop Culture this summer. I’ve been blogging since 2005, and my readers have said that they will support me. In many ways, I am an anomaly.
Furthermore, I also teach Intro to Women’s Studies, so I have a specific vantage point with regard to looking at how knowledge production (books, blogs, films, novels) by women of color is taught, appreciated, centered and circulated. I am also invested in who profits off of work that centers women of color as subjects.
Ms. Roxane, thank you so much for writing this, because you provide clarity around precisely what is at stake, when these key critical voices are marginalized.
One of the central contentions of my work, and my life is that Black Girls Are from the Future. I tell myself this, and I remind myself of this in order continue to produce the work that I have been put here to do, while also paying attention, critically close attention to the politics of inclusion and exclusion, as well as the politics around access to social institutions that can bring marginalized work into crystal clear focus within popular culture.
We are at an interesting point in US history.
I will continue to follow your work.
~Renina
Thank you for wonderful blog
Bookstores heading in same direction as “Blockbuster DVD rentals”. I think we should focus our collective efforts primarily on the “Netflix” electronic delivery model.
Excellent job gathering the review statistics–but they don’t show evidence of discrimination unless the fraction of minorities reviewed is smaller than the fraction of books submitted for publication that were written by minorities, or at least smaller than the fraction of books published by minorities. This data alone does not support the claim that “if you are a writer of color, not only do you face a steeper climb getting your book published, you face an even more arduous journey if you want that book to receive critical attention.”
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.