Reading and diversity - which author are you reading?

[Ray McCarthy]

I'm just wondering what people are currently reading and if it correlates to a dominant demograph.

That's an unanswerable question as people tend to read one book at a time and often several of same kind. I can't see what such a straw poll can possibly achieve. It's also self selecting!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

@Cli-Fi I don't think the original blogger was, actually, trolling, but was perhaps naive - I'll find the blog and link to it in the morning. But trolls have certainly snatched upon the idea.

@Ray McCarthy I was referring to sff as the combined genres of science fiction and fantasy. That's the norm on this forum and others but apologies if it wasn't clear. The list listed the top 230 authors by sale, by the way, and the one quarter statistic remained much the same throughout.

And, yes, there is an argument that if you want to read really good sff seek out women authors, because they have a harder journey getting published. I don't entirely subscribe to that but, you know, if anyone wants female sff writers Tickety Boo has @Teresa Edgerton , @SJAB and me. Gary is evidently bucking the 25% trend.

And, yes, ultimately the question may be whether it's an imbalance in publishing or a reflection of reader taste - but that's another thread! If you think it's one you'd like to see, post it. for me, I just wanted to know if what people were reading reflected a dominant demograph. Which may be unanswerable, or not. But it is a clear question.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The story was written as a satire of works on authoritarian dystopias and the common perceptions and fears of egalitarian policies, with its over-the-top dramatic portrayals of its dystopic society and titular character. However, it has been embraced by those critical of egalitarianism as an allegory of caution against socially enforced equality, more specifically the dangers of enforcing equality by virtue of leveling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I just wanted to know if what people were reading reflected a dominant demograph.

A worthy aim, but not easy to have reliable statistics on.

Curiously (and of no statistical value) I can't remember ANY female author I 've thought:
"I'm never reading HER again!!"
But there are at least half a dozen currently popular Male authors I feel I need MIND BLEACH and will never read again.
There are a 4 or 5 (popular Male) off top of my head I've not read and have no intention of reading ever.
I'm sure there are woman authors I'll read one off and never again.
(I'm curious and suspicious of all the Maeve Binchey and Debbie McComber in the house!)

 

[Cli-Fi]

@Cli-Fi I don't think the original blogger was, actually, trolling, but was perhaps naive - I'll find the blog and link to it in the morning. But trolls have certainly snatched upon the idea.

I think you may be talking about live journal right?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Since I've been working away on editing manuscripts for the past couple of months or so, I haven't really had any brain power left for SFF reading outside of editing (where it is all SFF). If I can cast my mind back to just before that, I think the last book may have been The Replacement by Brenna Yovanoff, and before that Marina by Carlos Ruiz Záfon.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

At first I was like Ray, fervently against it. And I made basically the same arguments that he is. 'Isn't going out of your way to read works by a specific group or groups just as discriminatory as going out of your way not to read works by a specific group or groups?'

Then I was school by a very smart 11-year-old girl. So, the short answer is no. Further, that's a damned stupid argument. And I was a damned fool for making it. Why the hell wouldn't I want to expand my thinking even a tiny little bit? What fossilized bullsh** is that? 'No, I won't read works by authors with different genitals than mine?' That's about the stupidest argument I've ever heard. And that's basically what this is. 'No, I won't go out of my way to try to get a different perspective than the one I already have.' That's the definition of a closed mind.

The worst case scenario is the reader will delay reading more of the same books they've always read for a year. The best case scenario is the reader will discover new favorites they otherwise never would have. Considering the utter domination of white men across most fiction (save romances), there's absolutely nothing lost to seeking out something different on purpose. Again, worst case scenario is the reader gets a few books they really don't like and maybe finds some they do. Best case the reader sees a familiar genre from a new lens, widening their worldview just a fraction. That's nothing to be afraid of.

If readers are really that afraid of trying something new, mix things up and only do every other book by a non-white, non-male author for the next year. Worst that could happen is you'll learn something.

I've haven't got around to reading Saladin Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon till now. Happy accident on the timing. I hope I can find some new favorites.

 

[millymollymo]

Currently reading: Best of British Fantasy 2014 edited by Steve Haynes and in contrast The Serpent Bride, a proper doorstop from Sara Douglass.
This 'debate' is not a new one.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

Seanan Maguire, Rosemary and Rue on recommendation of a (gay white male) friend. Female author.

 

[LittleStar]

I'll stick my input down. I don't look at author names and judge sex/race when choosing a book. That doesn't really impact my decisions, but I'll admit that thinking back on the things I've read in the last year (not audiobook, there are too many of them, and they are mostly classics) as far as I'm aware (i don't actually know what some of them look like though) they were all white authors: Neil gaiman, Suzanne Collins, david mitchell, Scott lynch, a couple of local recently published friends/acquaintances.

I don't know if that speaks more about my choices or the a dominance in the industry.

 

[Mouse]

Poor Jo, you knew this thread was gonna go mad, didn't you? I have seen men in various places, about various genres, saying they will not read fiction written by women. Even the m/m stuff I write has a fair few men who won't read any written by women - hence loads of m/m authors going by male pen names. I decided I don't give a toss what idiots think, so kept my own name.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I don't know if that speaks more about my choices or the a dominance in the industry.

The two things are related (I mean, not specifically your choices, but choices in general). People read what's published and people publish what's read. It's not the most holy circle. I'm re-reading Ancillary Justice at the moment.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I decided I don't give a toss what idiots think, so kept my own name.

Go Mouse!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

@Mouse. I did. I tried to fight the good fight as the OP, though.

I chose Jo because I prefer to be called Jo. It wasn't until someone pointed out it was conveniently not-obviously-female (if I'd wanted to be more obviously male sounding I'd have gone with Glitch's Joe ) that I looked all clever and genre-savvy.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

At first I was like Ray, fervently against it. And I made basically the same arguments that he is ...

But please remember FH -- and everyone -- that this thread is not about discussing the worthiness (or not) of the ideas presented in the blog post that Jo referred to in the first post. The point of this thread is tell people what we are reading and who it is by. Nobody has to justify what they are reading -- or not reading. That isn't why Jo started this thread.

So let's keep it on topic, not least because it's more likely to stay civil that way.

 

[Brian G Turner]

IIRC all are white

The English-speaking Western world is predominantly Caucasian, so this is hardly surprising.

And, yes, there is an argument that if you want to read really good sff seek out women authors, because they have a harder journey getting published.

I've seen a few SFF agents and commissioning editors directly counter this, by listing submission and publishing statistics that show that (IIRC) women account for a third of submissions, publications, and sales.

There is a sociological argument that white males in the Western world have a better access to eduction opportunities - I know of no coherent argument that white males get a free and easy ride to being published.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

As I said in my post I didn't subscribe to the women into publishing argument - no one seems to get an easy ride.


Teresa, I read a lot of Allende and Zafon, but I'm not sure where that Latin American/ spanish magical realism falls.

 

[Hex]

I've been reading lots of romance recently, and the authors all have female names.

You could argue that the lack of submissions sff agents report from women is similar to the lack of female applicants for STEM subjects -- a process that begins well before the actual submission or application. Perhaps women are conditioned to believe that sff is a male preserve and whatever it's like here, and perhaps it has changed, most of my sff friends growing up were boys and if I played d&d it was almost always with boys.

An alternative argument is that much sff from women is submitted to YA agents.

I don't think there's anything wrong with challenging our reading habits and exploring other kinds of authors. Trying to read more female/ african/ swedish/ gay authors is just another way to explore and categorise what's out there. As long as no one demands it, why not?

 

[thaddeus6th]

We ought to judge authors by the content of their books, not the content of their trousers.

I think the last fiction I read was by Clifford Beal, but I neglected to ask him what his ethnicity is [and, for the record, I absolutely do not care].

 

[soulsinging]

Why the hell wouldn't I want to expand my thinking even a tiny little bit? What fossilized bullsh** is that? 'No, I won't read works by authors with different genitals than mine?' That's about the stupidest argument I've ever heard. And that's basically what this is. 'No, I won't go out of my way to try to get a different perspective than the one I already have.' That's the definition of a closed mind.

The worst case scenario is the reader will delay reading more of the same books they've always read for a year. The best case scenario is the reader will discover new favorites they otherwise never would have. Considering the utter domination of white men across most fiction (save romances), there's absolutely nothing lost to seeking out something different on purpose. Again, worst case scenario is the reader gets a few books they really don't like and maybe finds some they do. Best case the reader sees a familiar genre from a new lens, widening their worldview just a fraction. That's nothing to be afraid of.

1) No, they're not identical arguments. Maybe it's my legal training, but those aren't even close to the same argument and one is MUCH more close-minded than the other. Saying "I'm not going to waste time going out of my way hunting down books/authors I have no interest in just because someone else feels I don't read enough multicultural lit" is not even close to the same as saying "I will never read a book by a foreign author."

2) You are completely trivializing the worst case scenario. Maybe you're one of those lucky folks that reads 100 books a year and one bad one is no big deal. I only have time to read about 10 books a year and if I read one that stinks, I'm out money I can't afford to lose (again, some of us are on VERY tight budgets) and I'm out leisure time that is priceless to me. The best case scenario is I read a book I like as much as the other book I would have read and it may or may not give me a "new lens." (I'm not even going to touch on how racist it is to assume a non-white male author has to be "different" or the assumption that white male authors have nothing new to say simply because they are white men)

3) Why is it ok to assume that there is no way I can view the world in a new way by reading a white male author? Why are ONLY minority and women authors capable of challenging my pre-conceived notions?

4) Why don't I want to expand my thinking? Because I've got a job that requires me to do that all day every day. My career revolves around social justice and the like. I spend all day neck-deep in identity politics... are you going to make assumptions about how open my mind is because of the book I pick up when I'm trying to finally relax and put all that out of mind?

5) Most tellingly, the OP and the article it references discuss minority authors or non-western authors, yet half the posts here are by people claiming they ARE multi-cultural because they're reading a book by a woman. It's still a white, Western woman, so get off your high horse. You're not reading Swahili and, especially if you're already a woman, you're probably NOT expanding your horizons. If this white male has to read black women lit to be a decent person, they ladies need to start reading reading more Heinlen or David Weber (or maybe chauvinistic Salman Rushdie) so you can better understand western male masculinity.

6) As to the ostensible goal of this thread, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you can't bring up a topic like this and then say "I don't want to discuss the issue, just have everyone list the books they're reading to see if it's true." For one, humans don't work that way. For two, no offense, but we already HAVE a big thread where every poster lists what they're reading. You can go through that thread and compile all the data you want and it would be better than the random moment-in-time snapshot you'd get here. Unless we're discussing whether we're actually reading women/minorities, how is listing what we're reading right now in this thread any different from putting it in the March thread?

7) Why do I read mostly white men? Because I grew up speaking English and can't read any other languages. Even most foreign lit I can get my hands on is going to be translated by... a white guy. Are people going to attack me for only reading books in English?