The recent chick lit writers versus Franzen conversation, while not without its own tedium, has brought to light some serious concerns about the utterly transparent gender disparity in the literary (and we do mean literary) world. And because we, too, are fascinated by our own marginalization, we have been faithfully, and frustratedly, following the dialogue.
We recently read, for instance, with great interest, Ruth Franklin’s article in The New Republic in which Franklin rightly frets over Slate’s discovery that the New York Times has reviewed far fewer books by women than it has by men. Ruth Franklin’s piece is smart, and so we’re thrilled as she thoughtfully considers the possibilities behind such numbers. (Are fewer women publishing? Are commercial books by women getting more recognition than literary ones?) And we’re even more thrilled when she goes on to state that the “most damning evidence of sexism—in the literary world and in our culture more generally” has more to do with “the lack of commotion” over these numbers. And when she says, “Why has the Times not felt it necessary to respond to these shameful statistics?” we’re like, “Nicely done, Ruth.”
But we then decided to take a look at the numbers for The New Republic (where Ruth Franklin is a senior editor), and we sadly discovered that it has been one of the worst offenders of gender inequality in publishing. We could count up the women they published in our heads. Counting the men, however, required a calculator. This is not an exaggeration; see the numbers on Erin Belieu’s article on Double-X.
So now we ask: Why isn’t The New Republic responding to its “shameful statistics”?
VIDA: Women in Literary Arts, a new writers’ organization of which we are a part, has spent many months tallying and listing the numbers of men versus women publishing, winning awards, and meriting book reviews in the literary arts. The full list is soon to be released on our website feature “The Count.” But in the meantime, check out what we have so far. Check out, in particular, the numbers for the Nobel Prize. Where is the commotion, indeed.
13 responses
I love your dry (and dry-eyed) take on these shameful stats. I’m like, nicely done, Susan.
Yes, the numbers suck, and what lies beneath them seems even more dismal and, sigh, worth excavating. Again. Didn’t we already do this, like back in the seventies? Eighties? I grow weary.
What about your own statistics? I don’t have the time (or, frankly, the inclination) to review the Books section on The Rumpus and tally the relative attention given to men and women authors; does anyone else?
I can say, though, that the Book Clubs here have been very testosterone-heavy. Out of the eight books I’m aware of (including Franzen and the two poetry collections) only one was written by a woman. On the original Book Club page, there’s a note about wanting to include more books than is possible, and three books are cited are examples–one by a woman.
Interestingly, the two poetry collections were chosen by women members of the board. So how much attention do you, The Rumpus, pay to sex of author when choosing a book either for review or as a book club selection?
That’s a fair question, Matt. Back in April, I took a look at what we’d been reviewing on the poetry side both in terms of authors and reviewers and found our numbers on gender were, if anything, tilted more toward women than men. I haven’t tracked it in the months since then, but I’d be surprised if the needle had moved considerably.
As far as the Poetry Book Club is concerned, I can tell you that we talk about it a lot in our meetings, and that the plan for the next two books in the queue–can’t tell you the titles yet because there’s some negotiation going on–are both by women. And while I’m not a part of the regular Book Club process, I do know that part of the impetus for the Rumpus Paper Internets project is a concern over the maleness of the Book Club so far.
That’s an important question Matt. I think someone should audit our reviews for percentages of books we review by women. I’d also like to know the percentage of literary fiction written by women compared to men in general.
For our book clubs I would point out that it has been testosterone heavy to start, but I’m pretty sure at least two of the next three poetry books are by female authors. All poetry books are chosen by a board with two men and two women on it. For the regular book club four of the next six books are written by women, counting the anthology of women’s writing.
But I do echo your concerns. I was not fond of the fact that the book club started out so testosterone heavy.
Hey Matt Baker:
Sounds nice to have the luxury to not have “the time (or, frankly, the inclination)” to concern yourself with whether or not women are getting published or reviewed. How does that work again? Doesn’t affect you, so you don’t have to care?
Yeah, we did do this in the 70s, and 80s and 90s… And I often feel like I’m the only one still counting names of women and POC in the lit journals I pick up. So thanks for this post, Susan and Cate!
Cheryl Strayed, one of the contributors to Rumpus Women, Vol 1, posted this link, on Facebook last night about how Franzen himself understands that it’s a problem of bias. He explained this in an interview with Terry Gross, whose own show turns out to be another outlet ridiculously skewed toward men. Terry Gross tried to spin the problem as envy of Franzen’s success by other writers, but he took the high road, explaining that while he may the touchstone of the discussion, he’s not the problem—and that it’s a serious problem. Post by Laura Lippman: http://www.journalscape.com/LauraLippman/2010-09-10-08:02
Nicely done. Thanks. And of course our really new world order is a smoothy, with women, men, black, anglo, blatina, anglina (angelina?) (bradpatina?), asian in its many permutations, trans, dyke, gay, pretty, ugly, big breasted, more modestly breasted, and always silicon-free. And so on. It ain’t just male and female because even though I am female in my many permutations nearly all of which are hard-line feministina I don’t want us working to include only people whom with we’re comfy.
It’s been done.
Last year, Guerilla Girls On Tour! published this list, more or less in response to the Publishers Weekly, penis aplenty “best” list. http://guerrillagirlsontour.blogspot.com/2009/11/best-books-of-2009.html
Sarah
…penis aplenty just became my stripper name
Hey Sarah,
We at VIDA are at pains to point out that the Guerilla Girls on Tour! (a splinter group from the original GG) actually copied OUR list for Best Books of 2009. At the time we were more than a little horrified, but at a loss for what to do. After many attempts at communicating with them, they finally agreed to credit us. We created our list on a wikki site (http://willalist.wikia.com/wiki/The_WILLA_List_Wiki) — and, keep in mind, this was when we were called WILLA — with the input of dozens of female readers and writers. It’s an important list. Check it out at the VIDA Resources page (link above), which has a lot of articles VIDA members have been publishing on the the issue of Couting.
@ Brian and Elliot . . . VIDA is in the process of a massive count of *many* venues, and if you’d like us to throw *The Rumpus* into the hopper, just let us know! As long as we’ve got our calculators out . . . we’re happy to help.
Best wishes,
Cate
True, Sarah. And in poetry we can also divide ourselves by style/school in almost as many ways. I don’t know if there’s any way to be all-inclusive in today’s world, but we can do our best to be aware of what’s out there and be open to as much of it as possible. When I’m looking at books for inclusion in the book club, I deliberately look for books outside my experience and comfort zone just to make sure I’m not dropping into old (bad) habits of reading only people who look and/or sound like me.
I say go for it, Cate. We’re obviously not sure right now and we can’t brag/change our ways if we don’t find out.
We’re breaking out our calculators this evening!
Warmest,
Cate
Good books are good books. When I read one, I don’t think about the author’s gender or race or anything else. I wish we could focus on that more.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.