The most frustrating part of not being able to keep quiet about the willful ways in which people are perfectly happy to enable the status quo is that when you voice concerns about the lack of diversity in any given arena, you are automatically positioned as that person, the shrill and humorless obsessive who simply cannot let things be.
There are days when I am happiest contemplating the trivial. As of late, I have been particularly consumed by the nuances of that commercial with the dancing hamsters and the scary future robots. The moment when the lead hamster throws his arm over his head to indicate he’s ready to rock? I am obsessed with that moment. I am also in love with the hamsters wearing Velcro leather high tops and the disembodied dancing robot. I have a routine I do when I see this commercial. That is, I have practiced the choreography the way I did when watching Janet Jackson videos when I was a kid. These are the kinds of things I enjoy thinking about. I feel the need to mention this because I am increasingly paranoid that certain forces are determined to make me go down as that person who won’t shut up. I need you to know I have happy, ridiculous thoughts with alarming regularity.
But.
In Time, at the end of 2011, Lev Grossman shared seven books he is looking forward to in 2012. These speculative lists are always fun because you get to learn about books on the horizon. They whet the literary appetite and who doesn’t love a good whetting? The list is comprised entirely of books by white men. This is not at all surprising. Certainly, there is stylistic diversity across the books, but in too many other ways, the list is lacking. I don’t know that I would get riled up about the list in and of itself. It’s such a small sample. There are thousands of books being released next year. Grossman cannot be expected to accommodate all or even a reasonable fraction of those books. He is looking forward to what he is looking forward to. I don’t care.
But.
At the end of Grossman’s list, he makes an infuriating, flippant statement. He writes, “This completes our survey of 2012 books written by white men. I don’t know what happened to the diversity there. Sorry. I have my New Year’s resolution now.”
There’s no great mystery as to what happened to diversity. It was ignored. Fine. Grossman shouldn’t have to pretend to look forward to books just because they were written by women or writers of color. He’s looking forward to seven books and certainly, within that context, there should be some leeway in terms of the kinds of books represented.
Grossman should have said nothing, nothing at all because by saying something, he whacked the hornet’s nest. In acknowledging the oversight so cavalierly, he makes the lack of diversity far more pronounced. He comes off as disingenuous, at best. “Ha ha,” he tells us, “I’ll do better next year.” But probably, he won’t. Maybe, he can’t.
When you really think about it, though, the condescension and trivializing in the faux apology are kind of outrageous. In the time it took Grossman to point at his list and acknowledge the lack of diversity, he could have simply added two or three books to his list by women or writers of color that also interested him. Surely such titles exist. Amazing books are being released in 2012. Grossman didn’t do this because he knew he did not have to. That’s what all of this boils down to—people generally only do what they have to do or what is expected of them and clearly, we are living in a time of staggeringly low expectations.
These status quo matters are, perhaps, relatively trivial individually, but collectively, the myopia indicated by such narrow lists and measures is overwhelming. Grossman’s list is indicative of the pervasive cultural issues affecting the publishing industry. It would be silly to imply that this problem either begins or ends with Grossman. His list is one of many cancerous cells in a very sick organism. The problem is that historically, the majority of books receiving the most critical attention and publicity are written by white men, so what else could he choose from? The problem is that publishers do more to push the books written by white men, those known quantities. The problem is that major publications like Time continue to prioritize the opinions of white men as their book critics. The problem is that we don’t expect anything different.
But.
To tell you the truth, I am bored with this conversation. Are you bored? You must be. The conversation doesn’t change because the status quo doesn’t change and clearly, pointing out that these problems exist doesn’t change the status quo. We know what the problem is. Talking about this cultural myopia in publishing (and elsewhere, for that matter) is spitting in the wind. The people who really need to hear the message, they don’t care and they don’t need to care because there’s no (financial) imperative for them to do so.
I’m tired of wiping my own saliva off my face. Those of us who want to see more diversity, of all kinds, from lists that look backward and forward, from measures of excellence, from Tables of Content, from book covers, we are simply trying to fight the good fight. Increasingly, however, I have realized that the good fight is no match for the status quo. I sound defeated, perhaps. I’m not. I won’t really shut up. Anyone who knows me, knows that.
But.
I want to find a more productive way of approaching these issues. I want to start thinking about how underrepresented writers can better infiltrate the great white, masculine wall of publishing and publicity. I don’t know how to make this happen but I do know it is going to take far more than pointing at the hulking elephant.
I don’t want to be silent about issues that concern me because all too often, silence implies consent, but I also want to feel like we’re moving forward and making some kind of difference. Perhaps I want too much but that’s nothing new. I’m going to spend 2012 trying to figure out a better way to talk about these issues. I’m going to spend 2012 seeking out the kind of writing I know is out there but is not receiving the attention it deserves. I’m going to spend 2012 committed to great(er) expectations rather than surrendering to the status quo. We’ll see how this goes.
In the meantime, I’ve created a list of some of the books I am looking forward to this coming year from both major and small presses.
***
A Random, Deeply Subjective Selection of Books I Am Looking Forward To in 2012 Mostly Written by Women but Also Some Men
Why We Never Talk About Sugar by Aubrey Hirsch (Big Wonderful Press)
Aubrey Hirsch is a wonderful writer on the verge of great things. I had a chance to read an early copy of Why We Never Talk About Sugar and loved this book. The stories are intelligent and subtle. The impeccable quality of the writing reminded me of Emma Straub’s The Other People We Married. Many of the stories are inspired by science and people trying to grapple with the complexities of an unknowable world. In stories like, “Certainty,” where a woman is convinced she will get her lover pregnant, Hirsch shows us how to believe in quiet magic. In the title story, Hirsch shows us the charm of her imagination and how carefully she will break your heart. This book was one of the most satisfying reads I’ve enjoyed in recent memory and I cannot wait for other people to discover Hirsch’s talent and this book’s many charms. You can read the title story here.
My Only Wife by Jac Jemc (Dzanc Books)
I haven’t read this book yet but I’ve read a lot of Jac Jemc’s other writing. She’s one of those writers who works brilliantly within the realm of the strange but does so with absolute control and flawless writing. I was particularly impressed with her chapbook, These Strangers She Invited In (Greying Ghost), a small collection of intricately detailed stories that lead the reader to unexpected places. I’m really looking forward to seeing how Jemc tells a story in the long form.
Dora: A Headcase by Lidia Yuknavitch (Hawthorne)
The one book I could not shut up about in 2011 was Yuknavitch’s The Chronology of Water, so I am eager to see what she does next. Having read some of Yuknavitch’s earlier work, I appreciate the way she experiments with narrative and language and emotion, It will be interesting, just like with Jemc, to see how Yuknavitch translates her formidable skills to a longer piece of fictional work. This book also has an amazing cover.
Thunderbird by Dorothea Lasky (Wave Books)
Dorothea Lasky’s Black Life is one of my favorite books of poetry and I recently read a poem, “I Had a Man,” from the forthcoming Thunderbird in the Winter issue of The Paris Review. Lasky’s poetry is stunning and she does interesting things with clean, spare language, cadence and form. When I read her poetry, I am often struck by the grace of the writing and how she can use such elegant writing to express vulgarity. In “I Had a Man,” for example, she writes: This violence that we put on women/ I don’t think it’s crazy/ Someone I know said/ “Oh, that man was crazy”/ I don’t think he was crazy/ Maybe he could tell I had a look in my eye/ That wasn’t crazy anymore/ Maybe he could feel the/ wild cool blood in me/ And it frightened him. All Lasky’s poetry is this powerful and engaging. I can’t wait to read Thunderbird.
The Fallback Plan by Leigh Stein (Melville House)
During my last year of graduate school two years ago, my friends and I heard a lot of ominous talk about the terrible academic job market so each of us began to develop a fallback plan. I was going to move in with my parents and hopefully get a job at Barnes & Noble. I was so certain I wouldn’t get a job, I nearly convinced myself that I actually wanted to move back home and go retail. In The Fallback Plan, Esther Kohler’s fallback plan is to move in with her parents after graduating from Northwestern. She ends up taking a job as a nanny for a family who has recently lost a child and is forced to deal with their painful family dynamics while taking care of their daughter, May. She’s also suffering depression and the anxiety of not knowing what to do with her life. I was skeptical when I started to read this book because the premise did not thrill me but Stein wrote a really poignant, well-paced book and she does a remarkable job of capturing the uncertainty so many of us face during our twenties. She does so without being cloying or coy. I was surprisingly moved by this book. There’s also an interesting story within the story and taken as a whole, I found myself thinking, “What smart writing; what a smart writer.”
This is What They Say by M. Bartley Seigel (Typecast Publishing)
Yes. M. Bartley Seigel is my co-editor at PANK. I would be looking forward to his debut prose poetry collection even if I did not know him personally. His poetry is gritty and he puts the most gorgeous rhythm into each poem. He also does a lot with repetition, layering ideas and words in the most pleasing ways. You can practically hear him reading the work when you read his poetry on the page. I also love his work because so much of his writing focuses on the rural, almost forgotten places, where the people have dirt under their fingers and gaunt faces, and broken lives but he does so with strength and honesty. This book is also exciting because Typecast doesn’t really make books, they make book objects. The design and production are going to be spectacular and the presentation will only enhance the fine writing.
From the Memoirs of a Non-Enemy Combatant by Alex Gilvarry (Viking)
We live in a complicated political climate and with the Senate recently passing the abhorrent National Defense Authorization act, which stipulates, among other things, that suspected terrorists can be held indefinitely and without trial, Gilvarry’s novel is particularly timely. This witty novel tells the story of a rising fashion designer, Boyet Hernandez, who is taken to Gitmo in the middle of the night. The novel is his confession. The writing is dark and funny but it’s also a painful reminder that we live in a country where civil liberties are being eroded in alarming ways.
Falcons on the Floor by Justin Sirois (Publishing Genius Press)
I just received my copy of this book and I am really looking forward to reading this novel because it tells the story of the battle of Fallujah from the perspective of Iraqis a perspective sorely lacking from so many novels and stories about the war. I am also interested in this book because Sirois consulted heavily with Haneen Alshujairy and is so deeply committed to increasing awareness about the Middle East. I am interested to see how he brings his passion for the region to this novel.
Home by Toni Morrison (Knopf)
I don’t know that any book has ever confounded and intrigued me as much as Beloved, and Morrison is one of those writers for whom I hold the utmost respect. She could be releasing a phonebook next year and I’d be curious as to how she arranged the information therein.
Wild by Cheryl Strayed (Knopf)
“The Love of My Life,” an essay Strayed wrote about the death of her mother is the most perfect essay I’ve ever read. She is one of those writers who writes about profound emotions in ways that feel almost decadent. I’m looking forward to Wild because after reading her novel Torch, I want to know more about the writer who could put so much breathtaking heart into a novel.
Forgotten Country by Catherine Chung (Riverhead Books)
As the child of immigrants, I am always interested in stories about cultural identity and trying to find home when you don’t really fit anywhere and the complex mythologies of immigrant families. I cannot wait to read Forgotten Country to see how Chung deals with the tensions of identity and family. She is such a fine, elegant writer. Chung was selected as one of Granta’s New Voices writers and in her story, “Wish,” which is so perfect, she writes, “Everything I wished I could give you, I’d already given away,” and the line, where it’s placed and how it’s written is so necessary to the story it took my breath away the first time I read it. That’s how all her writing works—words as intricate puzzle pieces. I just know her novel will be stunning.
Fast Machine by Elizabeth Ellen (Short Flight/Long Drive Books)
Short Flight/ Long Drive books has never put out a book that wasn’t excellent (Big World, Avian Gospels, etc.) so Fast Machine’s excellence is a sure thing. Ellen’s writing is amazing. I am a closet fan of everything she writes from essays to poetry to short fiction and it will be nice to have some of her writing, old and new, collected in one book. The best thing about Ellen’s writing is that it has big brass balls. There is seemingly nothing she won’t write about but more than the fearlessness is how Ellen writes about anything. She is willing to go there over and over and over but she does so really, really well. If you’re not familiar with Ellen’s work, start with “The Last American Woman,” and “bulldyke” and “What Was Meant.” You’ll see what I mean.
Pure by Julianna Baggott (Grand Central)
I love Julianna Baggott unabashedly, and one of the things I love most is her omnivorous writing ability. She can seemingly write anything and is unafraid to write across genres, and does so prolifically. She always reminds me that it is okay to want to write in different genres. The Miss America Family is one of my go-to comfort reading books and I am endlessly charmed by The Provence Cure for the Brokenhearted, which she wrote under the penname Bridget Asher. I’m looking forward to Pure because once again, she’s treading into a new genre and because I enjoy apocalyptic settings. I just finished the Hunger Games trilogy and am hoping Pure is equally thrilling.
A Wedding in Haiti by Julia Alvarez (Algonquin)
Alvarez is such a lyrical and wonderful writer so I look forward to A Wedding in Haiti because I want to see what the country looks like through her eyes. The premise of this nonfiction book is really interesting and while I am often wary of how Haiti is written, I feel like the country will be safe in Alvarez’s hands.
51 responses
Thank you for this piece. Though it might feel futile, we still (still? still!) need to say these things even though it feels like talking about these issues doesn’t change things.
We’re all so self-aware these days but I don’t think it’s making us any more empathetic. It really is maddening, as if acknowledging your prejudices absolves you of them. No, actually working on them will go some way to absolving you of them.
Something I’ve been saying a lot lately is that what you do matters more than what you say you want to do. I think this applies to Grossman.
Finally, thank you for this list. Hadn’t heard of the majority of these books. Will refer back to it for future reading.
Go, Roxane, go! Though it might seem redundant, and coming from a white man (although not at all mainstream, I assure you), I applaud your voice, your genius writing, and always look forward to your insights and process.
The list is incredible, some are already within my scope (loved Jemc and Yuknavitch also!) but I also had not heard of several you mention, so thanks!
I LOVE the comment about Toni Morrison. It sometimes feels like everyone feels obliged to ignore her genius for fear of looking like they are elevating “the token brilliant black woman.” She’s brilliant and brave; we wouldn’t ignore it in a white male, we’d celebrate it. Thanks for this list.
As a dude whose first name means “manly,” I wholeheartedly support Roxane’s great list of reading suggestions for 2012. Readers may also be interested in two forthcoming titles by Myfanwy Collins — a novel, Echolocation, to be published by Engine Books in March; and I Am Holding Your Hand, a “little book” of stories from Roxane’s own [PANK] Little Books.
Lev Grossman is a dick for saying that. Plain and simple. He should have wet noodles thrown in his face over it. Maybe that will change things. Conversely, everyone can do what I do, which is to make sure to buy at least 2 books by women for every 1 book by a man. Vote with your dollar. Better reading, plus overthrowing the patriarchy. Done.
Thank you Roxane. Thank you.
I just want to say, I really did feel badly about the lack of diversity in that list. The apology at the end of that post was genuine. If it didn’t read that way, I apologize for that too, but the feeling behind it was absolutely real. I’m grateful for the suggestions here.
Well, one suggestion might be to read some other books and open one’s mind. Sorry, that’s two suggestions.
(In case it wasn’t clear, those were suggestions for Mr. Grossman, since he seemed open to them.)
Thanks for joining the conversation, Lev.
fabulous sounding books, all of them. can’t wait to read. thank you.
Roxane is a writer I’ve admired for some time, and I will definitely put several of these books on my list. I’m glad she made this list. I think more lists should spawn from this article. Lists rock.
But.
I have a slightly different impression of the “white men” comment. Had Grossman’s list read, “Top Seven Books of 2012,” I’d be on board. But, it read, “Seven Books I’m Looking Forward To in 2012.” I read his comment as an acknowledgment of the list’s limitations, given that it was a personal list, not a representative sample of top books or bestsellers. I’m assuming he anticipated the response and was simply saying, “alright, but that’s not what I was going for here.”
If you asked me what four foods I’m excited about right now, I wouldn’t try to pull from every corner of the food pyramid. I would blurt out “chocolate, boil fish, vodka, and the everything bagel.” I’d follow it up with something like, “everything bagel….That’s a food group, right?” I wouldn’t mean anything by it.
I know Grossman is a critic and his list is more premeditated than a blurt, but I also value the idea that a list titled “…Books I’m Excited About” would be completely unriddled of any agenda and simply deliver a series of honest opinions. I’d hate to find a book on that list that the critic wasn’t really “excited” about but felt he had to include for the sake of variety.
I’m not excited about barbecue. I’m not excited about memoirs this year. That’s me. I trust that there are hundreds of thousands who are. They can make those lists.
I’m not excited about Marie Calloway or the Alabama/LSU Game. I would hate to pretend to be excited about something that genuinely does not interest me. Sometimes I want to read Stephen King. Sometimes I’m not really interested in anybody except Raymond Carver. I don’t know why. I’m just not. I try not to overthink it. I have even tried, before, to read books only written by female writers for a year. It didn’t work. I forgot. I’m attracted to the male voice in fiction. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I’m attracted to men. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was abandoned by my mother as a teenager. Or maybe stories told by women were always warning stories, and stories told by men were always adventure stories. Or maybe there is no reason. But I assume there are others like me, and even though I am a female writer, I still wind up reading men more often than not.
I’m a terrible reader. I judge books by their covers. If it smells like a boring internal story where nothing really happens except the main character’s perceptions of things, I don’t care who the author is — I don’t want to read it. I want scene. I want plot. I want rich characters. I don’t care who writes it — just like I don’t really care who cooks the food as long as it’s chocolate, boil fish, or a solid everything bagel. I work hard. When I settle in to read a book that I don’t have to review or teach or read for a friend, it had better be entertaining. I had better laugh my head off or cry until I choke. Or it had better be sexy.
All this to say, I like both lists and the fact that both lists were written. Without Lev’s comment, we likely would not have Roxane’s list. Now we have two lists. Two lists are better than one.
-Megan
Hi Lev. As I note, I recognize the constraints you faced. However. The apology rang… false to me because you were apologizing for something that was so easily, easily avoidable. Forgive the crude analogy but it is like punching someone in the face without provocation and apologizing into the face you just bloodied when you could have simply avoided punching someone in the face. There is no scarcity of books being published by women and writers of color next year, even given the current state of publishing. All too often I think we (writers, critics), take the easy way out when it comes to dealing with this matter of diversity because yes, it can be exhausting and overwhelming. We say, “This is just the way things are,†or we find some other way to justify our inertia because inertia is easier.
I am not well connected. I don’t have access to a magic font of advance reader copies. Often (60-70% of the time, though this is changing), when I want to review a book I just buy it when it is released. I only say this to note that I don’t have some magical insight into what’s coming down the pike. My list represents a range (fairly limited really) of diverse writers from major and small presses, because I made a point of being inclusive and because I make it a point to read inclusively. I am also genuinely excited about these books; there are no contrivances here or books added just because. I did not have a checklist and I wish I could have included more writers of color but I also was pretty happy with my list because I knew no one kind of writer was represented. You checked your list and you knew there was a problem with it. Then you apologized for something that could have easily been avoided and that is where the frustration lies. It would have been better to just pretend there was nothing wrong with the list rather than to point out the visible absence without trying to make the effort to fill that gaping void.
It is also, I confess, very disheartening when a writer and book critic with the stature of a Lev Grossman (The Magician King! The Magicians! TIME MAGAZINE! COME ON!), cannot put one woman or writer of color on a list of books he is looking forward to. That kind of omission in a national magazine like Time is overwhelming. It reinforces the pernicious message that this will never, ever change, this privileging of a certain kind of writer in mainstream media and that this privileging is perfectly acceptable. The critics with the power to effect real change when it comes to how books are talked about are people like you, who have the national and influential platforms to do so. That’s a lot of responsibility but just think what might happen if you could live up to it.
Thanks for your great comment, Megan. I agree that people like what they like though I do feel, as a reader, it is my responsibility, to read beyond my comfort zone. There is absolutely a certain kind of book I prefer over others. I don’t expect Grossman to like what he doesn’t like and his list is just one list but it is also important to recognize that this is a list in Time Magazine, not a list he posted to his blog. The context is really important here. What frustrated me about his apology was that it didn’t need to be said. It would have been better to not apologize, because it was such a short, personal list, or to simply fix the problem so there was no need to apologize. In a national magazine like Time, there is a responsibility to introduce readers to work by more than one kind of writer. For some people national magazines are their only source of literary news.
This is not the conversation I was expecting when I clicked on the article with an inset photo of Viagra with a girl’s name on it.
Roxane, this is a great piece. I think about this type of thing often with Literary Death Match. Want to hear a few crazy stats? Of course you do! Guess how many women we featured in LDM when we started? Two, in our first THREE events. That’s out of a possible 21 people. The first woman didn’t judge until our fifth-ever episode.
Now we’re nearing our 200th event, and it’s really interesting to ask the question: is it balance? Is there gender diversity? Is there racial diversity? Is there sexual preference diversity? I went to a comedy show in LA two nights ago, and after I told my (female) friend: why weren’t there any women? And she said, “Whatever.” And I said, “Not whatever! It’s dumb not to have women.”
Anyway, the point is, I had to learn to pay attention to that. It is SUPER EASY to get white dudes to do LDM. But the thing is, now that we’ve worked hard and long, it’s just as easy to get every kind of writer to do it, and lend it balance. And the coolest bit? The way it’s most brilliant when there’s a poet, a fiction writer, a graphic novelist and a non-fiction writers, the same goes for diversifying it in every social facet, as well.
I get Lev’s list. It would’ve been my list 10 years ago. But now, I recognize that I have to work harder, and think more, and then the list is inclusive, and thus WAY more interesting. Blah, blah, blah, I’m here with you (as are the people posting up above), if you need a tag-team partner for the good fight.
Hi Roxane,
First I want to applaud you for calling bullsh*t when it would be so easy not to. There is a great thing that most writers have access to these days, it’s called the delete key. Also, I want to commend you for your thoughtful response – which doesn’t let him off the hook for his non-apology.
Lev, if you actually feel remorseful may I suggest that you a) expand your reading because man, you are missing out on some great work by women and people of color and as an author you know how important it is to read works by authors with perspectives that are not the same as yours and who have different points of view.. right? b) write another article saying which books that you are looking forward to by authors who are women and people of color coming in 2012. The hype from all this may actually help more people find these great authors who could use the publicity because it is hard for authors who don’t fit the status quo to reach audiences and redefine what the status quo is.
I want to take a moment to say thanks to everyone for taking part in this discussion. The Rumpus comment-sections are known as a place for respectful discourse, and this thread is a strong example of that.
@Roxanne I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying. At all. I’m struck by the analogy with physical violence: I can see how attacked you felt by that blog post.
It’s an explanation — though not an excuse — to say that those posts get prepared in great haste. It’s true that they appear under Time’s rubric, but Time doesn’t give me time off from magazine work to do them, and in fact doesn’t particularly give a shit about them. Sometimes when you see problems, there literally is not time to fix them, and all you can do is apologize for them and hope the apology rings true (I know it didn’t to you). That’s one of the reasons that the wording of that post was very deliberately non-definitive (as Megan pointed out): these were not the Top Seven Books I’m looking forward to, these were Seven Books I Happened to Have on My Desk That I Liked or Had Reason to Believe I Would Like. In spite of the omissions, the message was supposed to be positive. We’re all basically on the same team here — yay books! — and I wanted to raise awareness about a few books I thought had value.
I know there’s plenty of unfairness to go around here, and it’s hard to write this without sounding defensive, but it’s not actually that accurate to say (or imply, as some of the posters have) that I don’t read diversely. We do publish lists that are meant to be definitive, like last year’s Top 10 novels list. There were 6 men and 4 women on that list (5.5 and4.5, if you count Lars Kessler, who’s actually a man and a woman writing under a male pseudonym). All four (and a half) of the women were my picks; I collaborated on the list with two women, who both picked men. I DON’T expect a medal for that: I think we’re all agreed it’s just standard due diligence for a critic. That’s the job.
Where I am actively proud of the diversity on that list, and in my criticism in general, is in the area of genre, which I happen to think is really important for both political and non-political reasons. Not a lot of big media outlets had fantasy and detective fiction on their lists. Hell, Kate Beaton’s book should have been on every list in this country. But it wasn’t, because most critics don’t take the time to follow webcomics. I do, because I think they’re important.
Again: this stuff is explanations and context, not excuses. I wasn’t happy with that blog post, and I’m still not happy with it. I know I have blind spots as a critic. I hope that when I am callled on my bullshit, I will always cop to it.
Hi Lev,
Her name is Roxane, not Roxanne.
This is the rare kind of discussion that is not hives-inducing, the rare kind of exchange that makes the internet worth it. Kudos and thanks to Roxane for writing a very smart, incisive and proactive essay, and to Lev for responding thoughtfully and openly.
@Lev: I guess, then, if you read widely, it’s an even bigger problem that you don’t see value in what you read from other walks of life. That said I don’t think your examples are apposite.
This is not a problem of genre vs non-genre.
This is a problem of attention and vigilance.
It is a problem of watching yourself to make sure that certain ingrained prejudices – and that may sound like a strong word, but it really isn’t – are not governing your critical standards and practices. Understand that that is not a knock on your motives, per se, though I’m not really convinced by your comments here. But if you are as open to solving this problem as you claim to be, you must recognize that answering that, “Well this was all just coincidence,” will not be sufficient.
The problematic part of your apology was that it wanted all the credit for promoting the works of other kinds of people without, you know, actually doing the work of that. That will always annoy people, I am afraid. I will say mea culpa for missing your end of year list, although you end up answering less than half the question Roxane is posing. But you are also the critic who declared, last year, Jonathan Franzen to be the “Great American Novelist” even though he too belongs to this club we are all talking about, yes? You can see where some people see a pattern, can’t you?
@Michelle But I do see value in it! My answer is not “this was all just coincidence.” My answers were/are, 1, it’s a little much to judge a 10-year career as a reviewer (or judge me as a person) on the basis of one blog post about some books that I liked, that I threw together in an hour b/c I had to. And 2: that said, I completely agree with you. The fact that the post, however thrown together, consisted of books by seven white men, does suggest that I’m not reading diversely enough in terms of race and gender. I have acknowledged that from the moment I apologized for it. The apology was genuine: I fucked up and I realized it. It was a painful confrontation with my own weaknesses and lack of vigilance as a critic. And I have been reading more widely since then.
p.s. pet peeve, that Time cover called Franzen “Great American Novelist,” as in A Great American Novelist, not The Great American Novelist. I would never have put my name on it otherwise.
@Roxane I’m really sorry about misspelling your name. That sucked.
Thanks, Todd. I really appreciate your comments because I too have learned to pay attention. As an editor, I am always asking myself, “Am I doing enough?” In some areas, the answer is yes but in other areas, the answer is no and I’m working on finding a way to change that. Diversity can be so hard. I’ve talked about this before in other places, but I feel like the various writing communities are so isolated. I have anecdotal evidence that there are all kinds of communities of writers of color but I don’t know how to reach them. In 2010, we started an annual queer issue at PANK because we were concerned about queer invisibility in literary magazines. Since then, our regular submissions from queer writers have increased significantly and it’s great that in nearly every issue we have some kind of queer writing. I would like to get that kind of representation in other areas too including genre (see our Crime and Science & Fiction issue and a forthcoming Pulp issue). One thing I’ve learned in this ongoing process of trying to be a better writer, editor, and critic, is that you can’t sit around waiting for diversity to come to you. Sometimes, you have to put in the work and go find it. The rewards are many when you make the effort.
The immediate takeaway I get from all this is that we can all do better, so we should make the effort sooner and not later. Even if it’s a dashed-off-in-an-hour post.
Of course there is no rewinding the originally faulty list, but I think this reasonable discussion going on in the comments certainly helps future dashed-off lists be more thoughtfully considered. Yes, time constraints suck sometimes, but the sooner we get in the habit of thinking, “What ELSE does this list say?” the less difficult it will be to compose a more thoughtful list in an hour. And that way, no one has to imply in their intro, “I could’ve done better, but I turned this in anyway.”
Comments sections can get so tiresome, but there is some great feedback here. I think Roxane is right on all counts, but I also appreciate Lev Grossman’s candor and willingness to apologize.
Lev. I think the point Roxane is making can be encapsulated in a simple but striking question: why is it that the constraints of the hour deadline produce a bouquet of white men and none other? And should there be a shock of recognition when that happens. I have no reason to doubt your apology was sincere but the real point is that sheepishness as such is not a sincere attitude in this context: it is aversion to the shock of recognition – that is assuming that the diversity question actually matters to you, in which case, the apology was not sincere. Obviously this strange infacility of writers that aren’t white or male to present to mind points to a serious level of obstruction in the structural arrangements of the production and circulation of cultural artefacts. So this is not about outing you as a crypto-chauvinist. It certainly is, however, about understanding how this very mismatch between an intention and a result is crypto-chauvinism, and this crypto-chauvinism encourages us to identify with it not by our direct, sneering assumption of white male supremacy but by the disavowal that awareness of the problem without action on the awareness allows, by content-free apologia, conscience without practice, and a general aversion to understanding cultural segregation as a product of the mix of labour discipline (the deadline) and broad-minded insulation (the idea that articles like this are justified but also somehow unfair in my case) which factors into the “soulful” operation of the cynicism of the normal.
Roxane. Thanks for this article. I really appreciate your tireless efforts on this issue because it is fundamentally tedious and thankless in terms of results, but it’s also indispensable and wants above to induce the quietism of exhaustion. If you’re looking for people to collaborate with in terms of thinking of new ways to bring these matters into general discussion, I’d be really keen to help in any way I can. There really does need to be a re-approach since simply pointing the problem out is so routinely absorbed by the “controversy” machine that marks out our general indifference.
Roxane: Thank you for your thoughtful piece. I commend your work in trying to give everybody a voice, especially when your position allows you the privilege to showcase writers who might not otherwise get an audience.
However, I think Lev is being too harshly criticized, and I want to speak up on his behalf.
Lev: Stop apologizing! You have every right to publish a list of whatever seven books you’re excited about. At the point where avoiding potential negative feedback or hurt feelings begins to factor into the creative process, it no longer represents the author’s opinion, but rather the collective social consciousness of all real and imagined readers. A writer’s obligation (in my humble opinion) is to produce original material (as in, originating from the workings of one’s own mind), which may or may not be pleasing to all potential readers. Anything less (or more) is at best pandering, and at worst, patronizing.
Todd: Good seeing you in LA. I like LDM regardless of the demographic breakdown of the participants, and I trust you in all your wisdom to make the best decisions therein. (thereof? thereabouts?)
@Roxane – thanks for your post and to all the commenters. This is definitely a great exchange. I’m a fan of The Rumpus and a contributor and I just want to commend The Rumpus as being the type of site that could engender this post and this exchange. In full disclosure, I also work for Colorlines.com, a daily news site that covers the news from a racial justice perspective. Ironically, Akiba Solomon, a great regular contributor on gender/diversity issues to Colorlines just published a fitting piece today about white politicians that have insulted Michelle Obama only to apologize later on and the fact that it is the “false” nature of the apologies that further angers (this is not to say that Lev Grossman’s apology was false, although it was clearly an afterthought). The piece discusses the importance of addressing microagressions not just macroagressions. This is particularly relevant given that this week the most popular video on youtube was “Sh** White Girls Say to Black Girls,” which spawned a whole host of similar videos. Looking forward to more thoughtful pieces and constructive dialogue!
Someone brought up the fact that Lev did not think of any women or people of color in his very quick deadline. First of all, an hour is an hour. You can’t go back on it, either. These authors are the ones who have been on his mind, so they’re what he suggested. And while I understand the frustration with apology, I, personally, am not getting the sense that Lev is apologizing and then is just going to go on with his life as before, being a crypto-chauvinist or having crypto-chauvinist tendencies or whatever.
Roxane’s article, and the comments here, are memorable enough I think that, next time Lev sets out to write a list like that, women writers or writers of color are probably more likely to pop up in his mind, because of the criticism, discussion, and suggestions that we’re seeing here. Perhaps–most likely–he’ll seek out these writers on his free time, so they WILL be thought of in that hour deadline.
I also want to bring up that as long as writers of color or women writers are less likely to be published and advertised, or less likely to write reviews, lists, etc for major magazines, then they are, of course, going to be thought of less, either being swallowed up by the mass of white male writers or targeted as the token female writer or Latino writer, etc.
Then again, it’s a circle. Chicken or the egg first kind of thing.
@Gillian BenAry
Regarding your comments to Roxane and Lev: couldn’t have said it better myself. And I wanted to, but gave up.
Lia. I actually agree in the main with your post, especially this: “Perhaps–most likely–he’ll seek out these writers on his free time, so they WILL be thought of in that hour deadline.” That was exactly my point. But this search for other writers so that they will be thought of in the hour deadline is much more likely to happen now, as you say, because of Roxane’s article and the comments here that Lev has seen. So the question is: if the apology attached to the article was genuinely sorry, which I have no reason to doubt it was, how come it didn’t also induce a serious insistence that this year’s list actually wasn’t up to scratch and that this failure was more serious than something to be resolved as a NY’s resolution list (which are notoriously breakable)? What was the apology about? I don’t even mean to speak about Lev Grossman here. I mean, more generally, what is going on exactly when we encounter a gesture like that toward acknowledgement of an effect only to have the apology, in a sense, simultaneously nullify itself for you – and suggest the effect is no longer present as an effect –by making it clear it wasn’t the intention. I very much doubt LG embarked on the blog post gleeful at the chance to stick it to diversity but then is the list thereby not sticking it to diversity, in some key way, because of that absence of intention?
My point about crypto-chauvinism isn’t about the motives or even the ‘tendencies’ in LG’s personality or the sincerity, or lack thereof, in the apologies he’s since added here, which seem in earnest. It’s about the way that the gap between some truer and more pure example of exclusion – someone who does it out of intention – and one’s own ‘accidental’ practices are maintained. So I’m not calling LG a crypto-chauvinist even at the level of his affinities: if I thought that he really did exactly what he wanted to do, there’d be no point corresponding with him. What I’m saying is that crypto-chauvinism is a logic of culture and it resides in the structural situation and contours of cultural taste – for example, it resides in things like the official standards of adequacy for what constitutes a best books list that arbitrates cultural taste and is also simultaneously meant to be just one individual’s idiosyncratic likes and opinions. Or it can be found in the rationing of work time where, as LG points out, his blog work is not really on Time‘s clock and they take little interest in it as such, yet is clearly also the performance he is expected to produce to display job performance in his position, meaning, because it’s already off the clock, that the work of finding other authors takes place not just off the clock but would have to take place in addition to the work already being done off the clock. It’s even present in the argument that one can’t do anything about how many writers of colour, or women writers, or queer writers, or, more generally, even writers from really unfamiliar vectors and styles than you’re used to and fond of, because they don’t get published (they do, as Roxane’s list shows, though not nearly enough, so it takes work to track them down) when what that really means is they don’t get advertised in the circuits around the salons of cultural taste-making. So, in that sense, it’s not at all about the specific motivation or a correlation to a specific person’s gender or colour but to the way cultural logics that create indentured subordination cohere in the form of our practices.
Gillian, thanks for your comment and engagement with this essay. I do want to say that this isn’t about… hurt feelings or censoring a writer’s creative process and it’s dismissive to suggest that. Nor was I harsh in my criticism which, as I note, neither begins nor ends with Grossman, whose work I read regularly and appreciate, or his list. As a critic, Grossman is fully entitled to write about whatever he feels like writing, and I hardly think what I’ve written here suggests otherwise. He is also a critic with a great deal of reach and influence and frankly, with that comes responsibility. Rather than saying, “Do whatever you want,” which is easy, I am simply suggesting that it might be better for literature and how we talk about literature, for him and other critics of equal stature to read more broadly so that the next time he makes such a list, whether he has an hour or ten to compose it, he won’t need to apologize for the narrowness in the type of writer who is being represented because he will be familiar with a broad enough range of work to better reflect modern letters.
David, thanks for your comment, which is thoughtful as always. This is, indeed a tedious topic to have to revisit over and over, particularly when there are so many things I want to talk about. The very thing I want to do is find ways to discuss these issues in ways that go beyond the spectacle of controversy or implied controversy. Attention clearly needs to be brought to these issues even now, but what else can we do to forward the conversation beyond highlighting an issue or problem? That’s definitely the question I plan on trying to answer this year.
I like this a lot, David R.: “What I’m saying is that crypto-chauvinism is a logic of culture and it resides in the structural situation and contours of cultural taste – for example, it resides in things like the official standards of adequacy for what constitutes a best books list that arbitrates cultural taste and is also simultaneously meant to be just one individual’s idiosyncratic likes and opinions.”
As a female writer (though still an undergraduate student and mostly still unpublished) this sort of thing worries me. For the most part–not entirely, but mostly– my experience as a girl (which will always influence and appear in my writing) is marginalized, not universal, and not appealing to the, as you say, official standards of adequacy. This is true of many people, not just girls–anyone without the straight white male experience (which is, like all experiences, often worth telling if told well–but overrated in its foundational role in cultural taste).
I think L.G.’s list is, as you say, symptomatic of the culture of taste. And I don’t have an answer to your question, other than that apologies don’t absolve one of sin (forgive the religious wording if you will) and all we can do–right?–is circulate Roxane’s list, alert people to the presence of the writers ourselves, and hope that L.G. will in the future become more aware, and broadcast that awareness, of writers other than the white male story.
Oh, and his original apology reads very badly (I read it and cringed–sorry, Lev, it just sucks!), though his appearance on this thread is far more heartening.
@Lev: My apologies. It was unfair to paraphrase you. But here is why I had the impression you were excusing all of this as mere coincidence. You wrote: “it’s not actually that accurate to say (or imply, as some of the posters have) that I don’t read diversely.” That seemed to me to imply that you felt that any deficiencies in the original list were unrelated to your reading habits.
Now, you say: “The fact that the post, however thrown together, consisted of books by seven white men, does suggest that I’m not reading diversely enough in terms of race and gender. I have acknowledged that from the moment I apologized for it. ”
I hope you can understand why, in light of your earlier comment, I was unconvinced that you were acknowledging the limited scope of your reading.
On some level, though, I’m not concerned with what you have done “from the beginning.” I am concerned with what you are doing now. To that point: I get your distinction between “A Great American Novelist” and “The” of the same. On the other hand: to which other novelists have you, as a critic, endeavoured to bestow this title? Am I being ignorant there too?
And while I am prepared to appreciate that your three, perhaps arguably four sentences of apology are some kind of representation of what you call “painful confrontation with my own weaknesses and lack of vigilance as a critic,” I hope you can perhaps understand what Roxane was saying all along, which is this: such a painful confrontation, in most cases, would have merited more than a passing and ultimately glib comment.
I really loved Roxane’s piece here and the points she makes and I love the fact that Lev responded and engaged here. I recently began teaching higher education at a land-grant university and I have students from many different backgrounds. I knew diversity of reading was important before I began doing this and now I see how even more critical it is. One of my requirements is for students to write critically about a contemporary author’s work and when they ask me for suggestions I have to have a banquet of different authors ready for them to choose from, or at least get them started. I’m not saying I’m perfect at this by any means. I have to read a lot. I ask friends and colleagues. I read websites and read several magazines and journals. This did not come naturally to me because like everyone here, I have my own aesthetic. But like Roxane said in one of her comments, it’s our responsibility as readers to get outside our comfort zone. And it is so worth it when you recommend something that someone might not have heard of otherwise and he/she comes back and tells you how great it was. I don’t know how many copies of Lydia Millet’s Oh Pure and Radiant Heart I’ve sold or bought for people in the last five years or how many copies of Mary Doria Russell’s The Sparrow or Eula Biss’ Note from No Man’s Land…and I get the best feeling when someone comes back and says, “Wow that was great, and I had never even heard of that book before.”
Very worthwhile conversation here.
I applaud everyone here for their contribution to this debate. Many good points have been made, but as a reader and writer of color, I would not want to be on anyone’s list because they feel they have to put me there. I agree with Meghan that you can’t force what you like or are “excited” about on someone else, no matter his stature or reach. Lev is not doing a public service. He is offering his opinions on books he finds appealing. Lev has a right to his list and Roxane hers. Perhaps what we need is more critics of color who are unapolegetic enthusiasts of books written by people of color. I have read Roxane’s reaction to other lists in the past, Richard Russo’s Best American Short Stories and The New Yorker’s Writers Under 40 for example and and she takes issue at lists in general I think even, as in the New Yorker’s case, when they include women or writers of color or women writers of color like ZZ Packer and Chimamanda Adichie. She always puts up another list, which is great. But I don’t think she would be happy with any list. Which shows the futility of lists, especially when the people who contest lists on a variation of criteria, still occasionally call the non white writers who made it really big and get on those lists “tokens” as Roxane does here in her htmlgiant piece “A Profound Sense of Absence” http://htmlgiant.com/random/a-profound-sense-of-absence/ “The tokens are out there,” she writes, “getting attention by the white reading public, but most black writers are writing for black readers and getting very little attention from mainstream outlets.” You can not have it both ways. Calling the writers of color who get attention on such lists and elsewhere tokens, while calling so vehemently elsewhere for inclusion, at all cost. Perhaps that’s another thing to resolve, for people of color to stop calling each other tokens when they succeed.
Thanks for your comment, Marcia. When only a handful of a given group of people succeed and receive attention, they are often positioned as tokens. You observation is one I will definitely keep in mind going forward but until writers of color are more visible, as long as we can still name names, the token label will linger. The token label will no longer linger when we’ve actually achieved inclusion and frankly, we should demand inclusion at all costs. Sometimes, that’s how change happens. I’d also add that I never want to be on any damn list because I’m black and a woman. I want to be on a list because I’m awesome. I am not suggesting that people follow quotas. I do think though, that if people read more broadly and beyond their comfort zones, it would be easier for them to create inclusive lists because they would be familiar with a diverse range of writing. For the record, there are all kinds of lists I am perfectly happy with. I will never be happy with lists that are narrow either in terms of the writing (aesthetic, genre, etc), or the writer and as long as such lists continue to be produced, I will continue to talk about alternatives.
But just because a label persists, does it mean we have to perpetuate it ourselves in our own critical writing? Isn’t that an odd dichotomy? Thank you for keeping that in mind going forward. A lot of people listen to you and it undermines your overall message.
Marcia, I definitely hear you and I am sincere when I say I will keep that in mind going forward and avoid potentially exclusionary language for successful., underrepresented writers.
So it’s ok to employ potentially exclusionary language for successful, appropriately (by your standards) represented writers?
That’s all these lists do and all they will ever do. There is simply no way to sample and suggest from a wide enough spectrum to please everyone, or make everyone feel that no one is being excluded.
There should be outlets for writers of all colors, creeds, religions, sexual orientations and genres.I love that you produce alternate lists, they have introduced me to books and writers I wasn’t aware of. I just don’t understand why that needs to be accompanied by a tsk tsk of whomever wrote the list in question.
Nathan, I said I would change my thinking going forward so, I’m not really sure… what you want me to say beyond that. The term “token” is one I have probably used reflexively and is not something I considered exclusionary but Marcia gave me a lot to think about and I see her point. This isn’t a tsk tsk but i’m glad that you find the alternate lists useful.
I took an American Black Literature course in 1978 while in college(yeah, I’m caucasian, if you need a frame of reference). I was reading about the white patriarchal power structure when I was in high school. So where is the news here? I mean, Time Magazine? Are you kidding me? You go after the most lame and blatent targets. “The Help” movie was another no-brainer. I guess the value of your “critiques” is that of carrying the flame. Your intentions are noble,but you go after such Obvious Targets. Kind of like shooting the side of a barn with a shotgun. Your apology before your writing seems to me a drawn out version of Lev’s post-apology, Roxane. But do keep writing, do. And lists suck. I remember when Spy Magazine used to skewer lists in the 1980’s, but with Humor. No apologies, before or after, from me. If you want to re-kindle my rages please do so more subtly in the future, and Thanks.
Harry, the targets aren’t obvious. They’re highly visible and there’s a difference. I also don’t think they’re targets. These are issues I am interested in talking about and movies like The Help or Grossman’s list provide an inroad to broader discussions. I am not interested in kindling anyone’s rage nor do I apologize here, for anything.
Harry, If the “targets” are so obvious, why haven’t they been corrected since your enlightenment in class in 1978? Who is talking about the constant perpetuation of these lists, as in, that list is so friggin’ representative of the white “patriarchal power structure,” it’s outrageous and why did an editor approve it’s publication? Who? Where? Nearly nowhere. And yet, it’s all “so obvious.”
None of this gets noticed, in any major or minor capacity, almost ever, and very few people say anything publicly bc, as Roxane points out, it’s so tedious and she also runs the risk of being further insulted as “that person.” In fact, you’re basically condemning her as “that person” for calling her pointing the list’s homogeneity out and asking what the systemic cultural conditions are that keep perpetuating such lists, year after year, are. Gasp, how could she ask such questions? It’s all so obvious to you! And yet, and yet… the same wheel keeps on. Where are your critiques about this ongoing ridiculous phenomenon, Harry? I’d love to see the not-as-obvious lists you’ve been drawing attention to – and in that, I’m serious. Because as you know, many people don’t look at these lists and notice just how limited they are – bc they’re used to them and expect them. But since you’ve been educated in this arena and have more suitable ‘intentions’ than Roxane’s “noble” ones, please guide us towards your efforts! Give us some links!
Frankly, I’m with David and lia above in terms of asking what the conditions are that led Lev, and writers / editors like him, to keep on keeping on with the same ole… But while I also read the apology as an empty one, esp as it was sans detail (speculative / how I might remedy this lack in the future, etc) and insulting for its emptiness, I was surprised he admitted, via the apology, *an awareness* of the problem with his list. Most of these lists get published sans apology / acknowledgement, brazenly so, and if one calls the compiler on it, his defense is usually an attack on the person pointing out the problems as one of ‘those people’ who reductively counts numbers, etc.
Of course, the issue is much more complex and nuanced than this – and carries implications reaching far beyond the compiler (i.e. how did the compiler come to have those books on his desk, who authorized him to promote said books, who empowered and published his list, what audience wants those kinds of lists, and beyond). Nonetheless, the hope I harbor, despite this apology as preemptive dismissal, is that there might be a growing awareness that such lists might be selected as intolerable / lacking / etc. — and publicly noted as such — to the point that those list compilers are actually going to go out, as Lev says he will do now after the fact, and make some attempts to read broadly, beyond the familiar sorts of books that comfort or the types that usually thrill him, and come back to tell us about the exciting new literature they’ve read and didn’t expect to like but did because it was [insert as-yet-undiscovered details here!] ….
Oh, the tragedy. He wants to read seven books, probably realized that they were penned by white male authors, and issued an apology to all the easily offended people who think it’s his job to promote people’s books just because they were born with a specific skin color.
Are you serious? I don’t pick up books from the library and decide how interesting they seem to be based on the author’s background. “Oh, this new novelist is a transgender Latina female. I personally owe her for being a minority, so I’d better stop reviewing this book on American war policy so I can sift through her manifesto of badly worded, angsty haikus. Then I’ll have insight into the transgender Latina female community, knowledge which I will never use because she’s part of such a niche group.” This author owes no apologies, though he’s kind enough to offer one.
I’m looking forward to the next Dana Stabenow book, where she’s bringing together protagonists from her two different series. Margaret Maron did the same in HER latest, and it was wonderful.
Am also looking forward to the next in the Divergent series, and many other books by amazing women writers.
@Amy. Dear Amy, here is a good read : “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” by Clifford Geertz.
And here’s a list for you :
1) spittin’ in the wind
2) pissin’ in the wind
3) “Blowin’ In the Wind”
Enjoy !
As someone who actually follows Lev Grossman’s work, I would say that he is notable as one of the few male mainstream critics who does give equal attention and respect to books by male and female authors. I have discovered many great women writers (like Kelly Link) thanks to him. I agree that this particular blog post was unfortunate, but it’s not representative of his work as a whole, and his explanation that it was dashed off makes sense to me.
I’d like to call attention to how damaging comments like Amy’s are to this kind of discussion. The zero-to-60 acceleration to full-on ranting and fulmination about “these lists” (What lists? Dashed-off blog posts?) and accusing someone of perpetuating “same ole” based on absolutely no real knowledge of the situation is so typical of these conversations. On what basis do Amy and similar commenters decide that they know ALL ABOUT Grossman’s critical track record from reading a Rumpus piece about a blog post he wrote? For god’s sake, take it down a notch unless you actually know what you’re talking about. Why is it that people are always the most bombastic when they’re wrong?
I know a ton of men who read only men and have never even noticed this fact. I call them on it all the time, and I think that’s worth doing. But you can’t accuse someone of chronically doing this unless they actually ARE chronically doing this, and Grossman is not. By throwing that accusation around, you cheapen it, and contribute to the impression that those of us who DO call people out on this stuff are doing it just for the chance to enjoy being self-righteous and don’t actually care about the truth. If you can’t be troubled to actually check out the guy’s work to see if that blog post is indicative before you start damning him to hell, you can hardly expect anyone else to take the trouble to listen, consider possibilities, investigate alternatives. Many people who make this sort of critique are not kneejerkers or hypocrites but the ones who are tend to discredit the rest of us.
I…don’t get why we’re not allowed to take issue with someone’s blog post because it’s not “indicative.” If someone, say, tells a racist joke, do you only take issue if they do it habitually? I hope not. It seems to me that if Grossman is going to put words out there, it’s fair game for anyone to read them and agree, disagree, critique, etc. He’s a public figure, using his blog to publicly share his thoughts. Have at ’em. His putative habits have nothing to do with it.
It’s interesting to see a few comments here from people who are basically making the “colorblind” claim–i.e., I read books based on how interesting they are, not on the sex/race of their author. It seems to me that those folks are missing part of the conversation. What Gay, and VIDA, and lots of other folks have been pointing out (for many years now) is that books are published and promoted and made available to you–put in your email and your hands–not by magic or by the untouched purity of your literary curiosity, but by an industry. At least in part, the industry decides what you read because it decides what gets published, what gets reviewed, what gets into stores, and therefore what your friends and “Good Morning America” recommend to you. Sadly, we ain’t blank slates.
Grossman’s post is a blip on the industry, but it *is* part of the industry. His voice and opinions are a lot more visible than mine, or probably yours (unless you’re Oprah.) He’s welcome to look forward to any book he wants, and to talk it up as he sees fit. Clearly there are many great titles coming out this year, but if they’re not by white dudes, they’re apparently not for Grossman. Which is sad. For him.
@David Rylance:
“why is it that the constraints of the hour deadline produce a bouquet of white men and none other?”
Yes. This. Exactly. If nothing else, it makes Grossman’s claim that he reads diversely ring false. As does his apology.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.