Sunday, October 29
In more industry-related news, it appears that Publishing Discriminates Against Men.
The writer of this post has unassailable logic behind him: after all, he's a man, and no one will publish him.
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Writers across the board like to blame others for their rejection letters. And it is true that there's an increasing number of female literary agents, female editors, female writers, female... well, females, all around. It's the kind of thing that makes the gonads of a certain type of male retreat into his upper body cavity: my gods, they're women! And they have power over me!
Because it's Sunday and I feel like eviscerating someone, let's examine Mr. Borelli's logic.
1) Louis L'Amour couldn't get published today, because he was a man who wrote for men.
It's entirely possible L'Amour couldn't get published today. He wrote mainly Westerns, a dying genre, and he wrote relatively short books which probably couldn't get published in today's market. Though, having read a bit about L'Amour, I suspect he'd have quite cheerfully written longer books in a different genre. The man was a realist.
I read L'Amour quite cheerfully as a teen, and liked him; he wrote good, fun stories with likable characters, including the women -- not exactly Buffy-esque girls, but not fainting daisies by any means. And, ah, guys? You read it for the guns and the steel-eyed cowboys. We read it for the romance. That was why L'Amour was such a successful writer: he knew how to appeal to a wide audience.
Perhaps Mr. Borelli needs a new example of a Manly Man who writes for Men and couldn't be published today. L. Ron Hubbard springs to mind. Oh, wait -- Hubbard sucked so much he had to start his own religion to get his misogynistic epic published. So... eh... Ian Fleming?
2) Mr. Borelli is getting rejected because he is a man writing for men.
A cursory examination of Mr. Borelli's writing suggests there may be a far simpler reason for his rejections. When a first chapter consists almost entirely of young, gorgeous women stroking and announcing their reverence to the main character (whose name bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Borelli's chosen pen name), one begins to suspect that this is a character who should be run past a Mary Sue Test. The secret society claptrap doesn't help. Writing-wise, we're looking at the dreaded First Chapter Expository Dump with the typical problem of too much tell and not enough show. And as a woman, having the entire purpose of women so far be worshipping men is... offputting? Yes. That's a good start.
Having female (only female ones? Really, Mr. Borelli?) editors criticize the book with terms like "male fantasy" and "male point of view" does not mean, as Mr. Borelli seems to think, that women dislike reading about sex from the man's point of view. It means that women are not all that interested in reading a book in which there are no actual women, but rather caricatures of what a man wants a woman to be, and, frankly, many men find this dull as well. Likewise books with caricatures of what women want men to be: I've been known to dent the wall with such books before now. The essential problem here is not gender discrimination. It is unreality. I read books for an enjoyable and sometimes thought-provoking window on the world, not to view someone's petty distortion of reality into what they think it should be.
And, finally....
3) More women than men read because not enough books are written by men for men, because all the books are being produced by women for women.
According to Broad Universe stats, of the books published in 2000 in the SFF genre, 67% were by men. Editing in the same year was more even -- 55% men, 45% women.
I'm not sure too few male authors and editors is the problem here.
(For bonus credit, scroll down in the Broad Universe link to the percentages of men vs. women authors who get awards. It is most enlightening.)
The stats on just how much of the fiction readership is female varies from 55% to 80% - a survey cited by In These Times says that the SFF readership in the same year, 2000, was 52% women, or roughly 20% more than women authors -- but everyone agrees: there are more women readers than men. This is not a new problem. Fiction reading has been considered a frivolous feminine pastime since the 19th century. In the 70s LeGuin was writing essays complaining that men were trained to perceive fiction (or, indeed, any type of imagination) as effeminate, and things haven't improved much. Men are reading -- most nonfiction goes to male readers -- but they're reading stuff that's "real", not that wishy-washy fiction nonsense: reading car magazines, and sports magazines, and science books, and business books. They're watching football and war movies and wrestling and porn. You know, stuff that reflects the REAL world.
(Side note: most of the men I know, and therefore most of the men reading this blog, do not fit this pattern. I apologize for the stereotyping. You guys are da bomb.)
The point is that the men who are already reading fiction (are da bomb! No, wait) are by definition not part of the group Mr. Borelli is claiming has been alienated from fiction because of all the girl cooties, and the men who don't read fiction aren't going to be tempted back by his manly ways. It's not the lack of male fiction that has alienated them. It's the very act of imagination.
And incidentally, the answer to Mr. Borelli's question "Are men less literate?" would appear to be yes. This does not surprise me. Where I went to school academic proficiency in boys was cause for great suspicion among other boys, parents, and even teachers: they were at best nerds, at worst "fags". If you had to be male and smart, you'd better be smart at something like science or math, or your fate was sealed. Small wonder guys put their focus in school on being popular or athletic rather than getting good grades. But let's belittle our pitiful excuse for an educational system some other time; the post's getting long.
More men than women are authors. More men than women are editors. More women than men are readers, but an increase in "manly" literature isn't likely to change this. It's not the books. It's the reading.
Mr. Borelli? No offense, but you don't have a leg to stand on here. Your lack of publication to-date has nothing to do with gender politics and everything to do with your unwillingness to accept well-meant criticism and your decision to keep writing self-indulgent sexist fantasies despite their artistic questionableness and lack of market. Maybe there's some equally self-indulgent sexist fantasies being written by women and getting published (though frankly, I've never seen anything this bad), and yes, that is unfair. But then it's not very fair that I can't go into a bar without getting backed against the wall by some drunk Casanova and have to bleed crabbily for four days out of every month. Life isn't fair.
Stop whining and blaming your failures on others. Write something people male and female will want to read. And fucking grow up.
The writer of this post has unassailable logic behind him: after all, he's a man, and no one will publish him.
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Writers across the board like to blame others for their rejection letters. And it is true that there's an increasing number of female literary agents, female editors, female writers, female... well, females, all around. It's the kind of thing that makes the gonads of a certain type of male retreat into his upper body cavity: my gods, they're women! And they have power over me!
Because it's Sunday and I feel like eviscerating someone, let's examine Mr. Borelli's logic.
1) Louis L'Amour couldn't get published today, because he was a man who wrote for men.
It's entirely possible L'Amour couldn't get published today. He wrote mainly Westerns, a dying genre, and he wrote relatively short books which probably couldn't get published in today's market. Though, having read a bit about L'Amour, I suspect he'd have quite cheerfully written longer books in a different genre. The man was a realist.
I read L'Amour quite cheerfully as a teen, and liked him; he wrote good, fun stories with likable characters, including the women -- not exactly Buffy-esque girls, but not fainting daisies by any means. And, ah, guys? You read it for the guns and the steel-eyed cowboys. We read it for the romance. That was why L'Amour was such a successful writer: he knew how to appeal to a wide audience.
Perhaps Mr. Borelli needs a new example of a Manly Man who writes for Men and couldn't be published today. L. Ron Hubbard springs to mind. Oh, wait -- Hubbard sucked so much he had to start his own religion to get his misogynistic epic published. So... eh... Ian Fleming?
2) Mr. Borelli is getting rejected because he is a man writing for men.
A cursory examination of Mr. Borelli's writing suggests there may be a far simpler reason for his rejections. When a first chapter consists almost entirely of young, gorgeous women stroking and announcing their reverence to the main character (whose name bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Borelli's chosen pen name), one begins to suspect that this is a character who should be run past a Mary Sue Test. The secret society claptrap doesn't help. Writing-wise, we're looking at the dreaded First Chapter Expository Dump with the typical problem of too much tell and not enough show. And as a woman, having the entire purpose of women so far be worshipping men is... offputting? Yes. That's a good start.
Having female (only female ones? Really, Mr. Borelli?) editors criticize the book with terms like "male fantasy" and "male point of view" does not mean, as Mr. Borelli seems to think, that women dislike reading about sex from the man's point of view. It means that women are not all that interested in reading a book in which there are no actual women, but rather caricatures of what a man wants a woman to be, and, frankly, many men find this dull as well. Likewise books with caricatures of what women want men to be: I've been known to dent the wall with such books before now. The essential problem here is not gender discrimination. It is unreality. I read books for an enjoyable and sometimes thought-provoking window on the world, not to view someone's petty distortion of reality into what they think it should be.
And, finally....
3) More women than men read because not enough books are written by men for men, because all the books are being produced by women for women.
According to Broad Universe stats, of the books published in 2000 in the SFF genre, 67% were by men. Editing in the same year was more even -- 55% men, 45% women.
I'm not sure too few male authors and editors is the problem here.
(For bonus credit, scroll down in the Broad Universe link to the percentages of men vs. women authors who get awards. It is most enlightening.)
The stats on just how much of the fiction readership is female varies from 55% to 80% - a survey cited by In These Times says that the SFF readership in the same year, 2000, was 52% women, or roughly 20% more than women authors -- but everyone agrees: there are more women readers than men. This is not a new problem. Fiction reading has been considered a frivolous feminine pastime since the 19th century. In the 70s LeGuin was writing essays complaining that men were trained to perceive fiction (or, indeed, any type of imagination) as effeminate, and things haven't improved much. Men are reading -- most nonfiction goes to male readers -- but they're reading stuff that's "real", not that wishy-washy fiction nonsense: reading car magazines, and sports magazines, and science books, and business books. They're watching football and war movies and wrestling and porn. You know, stuff that reflects the REAL world.
(Side note: most of the men I know, and therefore most of the men reading this blog, do not fit this pattern. I apologize for the stereotyping. You guys are da bomb.)
The point is that the men who are already reading fiction (are da bomb! No, wait) are by definition not part of the group Mr. Borelli is claiming has been alienated from fiction because of all the girl cooties, and the men who don't read fiction aren't going to be tempted back by his manly ways. It's not the lack of male fiction that has alienated them. It's the very act of imagination.
And incidentally, the answer to Mr. Borelli's question "Are men less literate?" would appear to be yes. This does not surprise me. Where I went to school academic proficiency in boys was cause for great suspicion among other boys, parents, and even teachers: they were at best nerds, at worst "fags". If you had to be male and smart, you'd better be smart at something like science or math, or your fate was sealed. Small wonder guys put their focus in school on being popular or athletic rather than getting good grades. But let's belittle our pitiful excuse for an educational system some other time; the post's getting long.
More men than women are authors. More men than women are editors. More women than men are readers, but an increase in "manly" literature isn't likely to change this. It's not the books. It's the reading.
Mr. Borelli? No offense, but you don't have a leg to stand on here. Your lack of publication to-date has nothing to do with gender politics and everything to do with your unwillingness to accept well-meant criticism and your decision to keep writing self-indulgent sexist fantasies despite their artistic questionableness and lack of market. Maybe there's some equally self-indulgent sexist fantasies being written by women and getting published (though frankly, I've never seen anything this bad), and yes, that is unfair. But then it's not very fair that I can't go into a bar without getting backed against the wall by some drunk Casanova and have to bleed crabbily for four days out of every month. Life isn't fair.
Stop whining and blaming your failures on others. Write something people male and female will want to read. And fucking grow up.
Blogarama
