So Esquire magazine recently posted a list of “The 75 Books Every Man Should Read” on their website. Esquire being Esquire – that is to say, a men’s magazine that had its glory days in the era of Mad Men and that seems to be aimed mostly at old farts (and aspiring old farts) — only one book of the 75 was written by a woman. (That’s 98.67% male, for those of you with lady brains who can’t do the math.)
The internet being the internet, some people noticed that the list was a wee bit heavy on the dudes, even for a men’s magazine, and pointed this out. The bloggers at the Joyland Publishing blog suggested that while the books on Esquire’s list were “mostly fantastic,” it might behoove men to pick up a book or two written by a woman once in a while. And so, with the help of some of their readers, the two assembled a list of “250 Books By Women All Men Should Read.” (Why 250 and not, say, 75? Because they got a lot of suggestions.)
Here’s a little one-question quiz for you all: What title did W. F. Price at The Spearhead give his post on the controversy?
A) “Some Great Suggestions for Books by Women You Guys Might Want to Read.”
B) “Did You Know There Are Female Authors Besides The Chick That Wrote Harry Potter?”
C) “Feminist Publishers: Force Men to Read Women’s Lit”
Yep, the correct answer is C, of course. Apparently a couple of bloggers suggesting some books by women that men “should” read is some kind of Gestapo-like imposition upon men by “Feminist Publishers.” Price grouses:
[I]it strikes me as rather mean-spirited of females in the publishing industry to denounce even ineffectual efforts to introduce men to literature. By all accounts, publishing has come to be dominated by women, and men are reading far fewer books than women these days. Given this state of affairs, you’d think that the women in the industry might be a bit gracious and let the boys pick and choose which titles interest them.
But of course that won’t do, because feminists must find fault with any and everything men are involved in. …
The implication [of the Joyland Publishing blog post] is that men should be forced by political pressure to read female writers (sometimes these feminists come off as whiny, annoying girlfriends complaining that “he just won’t listen to me!”).
Or, you know, it might just be that the writers of the blog post, and those who wrote in with suggestions, really enjoyed the books in question and thought that dudes might just enjoy them too. Sort of like when a friend tells you that you should totally watch the movie Dogtooth, because it is so fascinating and creepy and awesome. Or when I tell you right now that you should go watch Jane Austen’s Fight Club on Funny or Die.
Naturally, the comments from Spearheaders were even more ignorant and obtuse than Price’s post. The basic theme: Bitches can’t write for shit (as far as I know).
In case you think I am offering an unfair characterization of the, er, debate, here’s one Spearheader’s contribution to the discussion:
when a man says “no, I won’t read your literature”, you have to respect that, bitch.
And another’s:
I basically do not read anything a wimminz has written, not even in my favourite genre of science fiction, because every single time I have tried they have been unmitigated fucking crap full of feminazi girl power bullshit and emotional baggage and basically very little hard SF…
And still another’s:
I never read anything written by women unless it happens to be instructional and related to work. Pretty much all the fiction I’ve ever read is by and for males. If I read some non-fiction for fun it’s always got a male author. I realized a while back that my cd collection is about 98% male. When I was a kid I never thought about it, it just came naturally. Now that I’m older I intentionally avoid anything by women.
It’s always,er, instructive to see what some random guy who apparently reads mostly instructional manuals has to say about the literary controversies of the day.
There were, of course, more thoughtful analyses, like this earnest comment from the excitable, exclamation-point-happy David K. Meller:
Women write for an audience of their own level–to wit themselves! Most men are simply too intelligent to be interested in what passes for literature scribbled by women! …
Correct me if I am wrong, but is most woman’s “literature” one more kvetch klatsch of women–or girls–getting together to complain about, to defeat, or to evade the workings of us evil, letcherous, abusive, horrible M-E-N! There is no point in men reading such drivel …
There may be better days coming; when women are once again taught the arts of pleasing men, in their creating a comfortable environment for the chosen man in their lives, and when they again will use their ability to read to discover new and better ways to do this, and their ability to write to communicate these truths to others of their sex! Until that happens, literacy for women, much less dominance in authorship, editing, and publishing has been, and is, a BLOODY MESS for everyone, especially men!!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Yes, women should really only be allowed to read and write if they are reading or writing instructional manuals on how to cook and give better blow jobs, possibly at the same time.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!! to you too, good sir.
Speaking of which — the blowjob bit, not the PEACE AND FREEDOM!! — the commenter calling himself dragnet suggested that young men such as himself were simply too busy to read much of anything. They have other priorities:
The vast majority of my reading is for work, research, and classes. …
Frankly, I’d rather be getting laid than reading a novel after a grueling work week. The three or four hours I sometimes have free on the weekend when I’m not working or working out or sleeping or eating, I’d rather be out with my friends or getting serviced by whatever girl I’m with at the time.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a penis, must be in want of some girl to service it.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!1!!
Anyway, ladies and manginas, any good lady books you want to suggest for the dudes of the world?
I recognize Sarah Vowell. Really cool historical writer, chooses good topics. I read her newest book Unfamiliar Fishes. Buy-worthy.
I recently listened through the Gunslinger series twice
I really quite liked how parts of the Gunslinger were interwoven with some of his other books.
But, wow, embarking on reading a ten novel series is kind of daunting when you start. Although it is much better than L. Ron Hubbard’s piece of crap.
But have you read the book?
well, absolutely. One of the characters is an architect.
Well what else should I be focusing on? I don’t agree with much of anything else in that post.
Wait, ten novels? Am I missing some?
but every few weeks I’ll be in a bathroom and just know that I’ll turn around and see a balloon behind me. Gah.
Well, then you’d best also avoid The Moving Finger.
I like Bujold’s stuff. I’ll also commend Elizabeth Bear, James Tiptree, Mary Doria Russell.
The thing about Frankenstein is that Percy did some editing, for the second edition. It hurt the book, but there is a version out there which he had a hand in.
I’m not a huge Bradley fan, and I find McCaffery problematic; but they aren’t bad books.
I like Georgette Heyer as well.
And Agatha Christie.
I would say (to asnwer Beth) that Patrick O’Brian writes great stuff; and his women are believable (at least to me).
MRAL: Unless you read them how do you know if the authors aren’t any good?
The Problem with your model of, “wymenz” is it fails to account for how publishing works. My family has been in the book trade for… 30 years, more or less, and I have a lot of friends who are either authors, or in publishing.
It’s not about politics (well excepting presses like Regenry). It’s about money. If the story is good, it gets published. In the day there were a lot of female writers who had to pretend to be men to get published (Tiptree, Norton, immedieately come to mind). I would say they, by your formula, “were published because they were men”.
Why? Because when they submitted stories under their own name, they were denied. When they pretended to be men, they weren’t.
QED it was being male which got those stories published.
That works because there are a lot more books submitted than any publisher can afford to put on the market, so they can be as bigotted at the folks at Spearhead and still make a living.
(as to Seannen: in addition to last year’s Campbell Award, she was just nominated [well, a month ago] for a Hugo this year: My Fiancee does the first pass editing on her books. Tells me I should read them
No, sorry, Nobby, only seven. I think in the first book he talked about ten total.
How has no one mentioned Margaret Atwood yet? I must have read The Blind Assasin six times in Peace Corps.
Also, Tamora Pierce has been putting out really good YA books for the past twenty years.
Andre Norton was one of my first Sci-Fi love affairs. (Fun Fact: she publishes under a male pseudonym because: misogyny. She did start writing in the 30s tho.)
Pecunium, maybe in the past, but now it’s advantageous to be a wymyn author, because you get attention for shit.
also, for skiffy, I have to endorse Andre Norton. Some of her stories made quite an impression on me as a teenager.
Oh hey, this lady-author just won a Nebula Award for her story. READ IT:
http://subterraneanpress.com/index.php/magazine/summer-2010/fiction-the-lady-who-plucked-red-flowers-beneath-the-queens-window-by-rachel-swirsky/
Also, the Margaret Atwood.
And Katharine Dunn’s Geek Love was awesome.
for science fiction short works, I am quite fond of the Best Science Fiction of the Year anthologies by Gardner Dozois. There are many women authors represented, and a wide diversity of story types and styles.
MRAL, what female authors are you thinking about – the ones who receive attention for shit?
Leigh Brackett is an interesting case. You can’t call her a feminist author, because she came out of the pulp sf tradition, and stuck with it for the rest of her career. She always wrote male POV characters, and they were all basically Humphrey Bogart. OTOH, she was very good at it, and is now considered one of the exemplars of the Planet Story style of sf.
On a completely different note, there’s historical novelist Sharon Kay Penman. Even if you think Richard III did kill the Princes in the Tower, you’re going to find The Sunne in Splendour un-put-downable.
Here’s a piece in The Independent on the Percy/Mary Shelley Frankenstein-writing controversy. He worked with her quite extensively as an editor as she was writing the book, but didn’t write it.
Fun fact: editors often make enormous changes to books and articles.
Fun fact: editors often make enormous changes to books and articles.
you don’t say.
MRAL: What part of I have actual experience with publishing/authors/the book trade did you not pay attention to.
Also, you asked for authors who are published because they were male. I gave them.
Now… who are these authors who are being published because they are female, as opposed to being authors people are willing to pay money to read?
Names, and reasons. Show your work.
from David’s link:
He made the monster far more human,
THANK YOU.
Yes, David, that’s me up there. I got the email addy wrong.
Pecunium, maybe in the past, but now it’s advantageous to be a wymyn author,
spoken from his 20 years of experience as a male not-author.
Zombie: It’s why men are outnumbered by women in the list of published books. All the preference women get.
Well, Pecunium, that will just be because women are so inherently inferior at brain-work like writing. If not for the bias, there wouldn’t be ANY books written by women.
Also, is there a sarcasm smiley?