Reading and diversity - which author are you reading?

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Since this is clearly not going anywhere I'll let it go, but I do want to respond to this piece first.

Why is accidentally in quotes here? Are you implying that those of us that claim we don't care or pay attention are feigning that so we can select all caucasian writers? That's absurd. The result is NOT indistinguishable. I don't pay attention, and half the books I've read recently were by women (maybe more... is Tracy Hickman a guy or girl? I've never cared enough to find out). So my passive shrug is NOT resulting in all-white male books. My point is it would be utterly ludicrous for me to be at a bookstore, see something interesting, read the plot and reviews and find it really promising, then look at the picture on the inside back cover and go "oh, wait, it's a white guy. I shouldn't read this one because the PC-police will say I'm not open-minded enough."

It seems you've utterly failed to understand the basic premise of the challenge. The challenge isn't to never read books by white guys ever again, rather, it's a challenge to intentionally read more diversely for a year. Unless you're some kind of magical reader that I've never met in real life who doesn't have a stack or to-be-read books waiting for them, then simply shuffling the female writers you already have in your stack to the top and reading them first would satisfy. No one's saying you shouldn't read men, all the original blog post was suggesting is make a conscious effort to widen your circle. If you're one of the people who already reads diversely, you have nothing to worry about, and even less to complain about. So someone out in the world made a suggestion you don't like. Welcome to the world. It happens millions of times every day. Your not liking it doesn't magically mean they were wrong for suggesting it, nor that it should not have been suggested for others.

Accidentally is in quotes because there's nothing accidental about reading a book. You don't accidentally find yourself in a car or on a bus, you don't accidentally stumble into a bookshop, you don't accidentally stumble into a section that might or might not fit your tastes, nor do you accidentally get a given book glued to your hand as you stumble around the shop desperately trying to remove said book. Further, you don't accidentally wait in a queue to get to the register, accidentally bump into the counter so hard your wallet pops out splays open and spills enough currency or plastic to cover the cost of the book that's mysteriously affixed itself to your hand. Nor do you accidentally take the book home, accidentally sit down with it, or accidentally open it to page one and start reading. (Though that would make for a wonderful Mr Bean skit.)

Every single piece of the process involved in acquiring a book and reading it is a choice you make. If you choose not to pay attention, that's still a choice. If you choose to not care, that's still a choice.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Unless you're some kind of magical reader that I've never met in real life who doesn't have a stack or to-be-read books waiting for them, then simply shuffling the female writers you already have in your stack to the top and reading them first would satisfy.

To be fair, I know a number of avid readers who don't have a stack of to-be-read books. The only time I have one is if I've come back from the library or the bookstore, and I bring those books home with the intention of reading them, one after the other, with the next week or so. I never buy a work of fiction unless I want to read it now. When I have a stack, it doesn't last long.

So I can adjust my reading habits at any time, when I want to. And though this comes about because I can't afford to stockpile books, it does mean that I can go through reading cycles, which sometimes means something like reading a month of steampunk or three weeks of YA, and sometimes it means discovering an author outside my usual reading habits and spending a couple of weeks tracking down and reading all of their books.

I actually think it must be harder for people who already have their reading for the next several months (or years) already bought and piled up by their beds. They've invested money in those books, and I can why they might not want to buy a bunch of other books and drop them on the top, to be read first.

 

[soulsinging]

Nobody is saying that anyone should track all the books they read. But to concentrate on diversity for a while as an exercise, that is something that has some merit. At least for those who are interested. (And for those who aren't interested, why worry about it? Carry on with what you are doing. Nobody is going to judge you, because nobody is going to know what you are or are not reading unless you choose to trumpet it about.) For those who choose to do it, it could be eye-opening and perhaps introduce them to writers they would never have otherwise discovered, writers it turns out that they like. It's not a lot different from someone saying to themselves, "I think I will spend the next six months books reading Classical Greek and Roman authors, since that's something I'd like to learn more about."

If you have already studied women's literature and non-European literature, why would you think the suggestion was leveled at you? Why feel defensive? You've done the very thing that is being suggested here, and more. And since you presumably found your studies interesting and valuable -- otherwise, why would you have wasted your time -- why argue against even a limited commitment by others to do the same? Why not encourage them by offering some of the insights you gained? I think it would be fascinating if you were to share.

I don't think the suggestion was leveled at me, I think it is a mostly absurd suggestion in general. I wasted my time because it was required for my degree, and while it was interesting, it was not particularly valuable. My courses in sociology and political science were far more valuable in terms of expanding my horizons and opening my eyes to new cultures (to say nothing of actually traveling to such places). The literature I found generally to be incredibly dull. That said, if anyone wants to concentrate on this, by all means go for it and I hope it's revelatory. But I disagree with with your parenthetical wholeheartedly: there are HEAPS of judgment being tossed out by this blogger and similarly-minded individuals and it is being touted by them as not just for those who are interested, but something everyone should do whether they want to or now. See above where those who don't go out of their way to read "diverse" authors (a term that has been ill-defined) have been deemed "close-minded."

 

[soulsinging]

It seems you've utterly failed to understand the basic premise of the challenge. The challenge isn't to never read books by white guys ever again, rather, it's a challenge to intentionally read more diversely for a year. Unless you're some kind of magical reader that I've never met in real life who doesn't have a stack or to-be-read books waiting for them, then simply shuffling the female writers you already have in your stack to the top and reading them first would satisfy. No one's saying you shouldn't read men, all the original blog post was suggesting is make a conscious effort to widen your circle. If you're one of the people who already reads diversely, you have nothing to worry about, and even less to complain about. So someone out in the world made a suggestion you don't like. Welcome to the world. It happens millions of times every day. Your not liking it doesn't magically mean they were wrong for suggesting it, nor that it should not have been suggested for others.

Every single piece of the process involved in acquiring a book and reading it is a choice you make. If you choose not to pay attention, that's still a choice. If you choose to not care, that's still a choice.

They're not wrong for suggesting it, they are wrong for labeling anyone close-minded simply because they choose not to care about this issue and question the value of the challenge in the first place. As I said before, I feel there are far bigger concerns in this world than whether or not the small handful of people that still read for leisure (a pretty cool group imho) are reading enough of the "right" books. You feel differently. That's fine, but it doesn't make me close-minded.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

They're not wrong for suggesting it, they are wrong for labeling anyone close-minded simply because they choose not to care about this issue and question the value of the challenge in the first place. As I said before, I feel there are far bigger concerns in this world than whether or not the small handful of people that still read for leisure (a pretty cool group imho) are reading enough of the "right" books. You feel differently. That's fine, but it doesn't make me close-minded.

Facepalm.

You're only closed-minded in that you're stubbornly refusing to accept people at their word and apparently have a burning desire to twist this into some vast left-wing conspiracy against good, clean, white authors. I'm gobsmacked that you honestly don't seem to get it. It's not about reading the right books. At all. It's about challenging people to try reading outside their comfort zone for a short time and seek out non-white, non-male writers. That's it. You make it sound like the Illuminati and the Masons have joined forces to come to your home and will clear out your personal library.

 

[Foxbat]

Right now I'm alternating between reading a history of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Carlos Ruiz Zafon's Shadow Of The Wind.
The last book I read by a female author was Teresa's Goblin Moon.

I don't know when I read the last book by a gay author because, frankly, I'm not that interested in a writer's sexuality and make no effort to find out if an author I'm currently reading is gay, straight or otherwise.

I won't discount reading any author due to their ethnicity, gender or sexuality. Then again, I won't read any author just because of their ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But I disagree with with your parenthetical wholeheartedly: there are HEAPS of judgment being tossed out by this blogger and similarly-minded individuals

I should have said (which was what I meant) that no one here was judging you.

 

[soulsinging]

Facepalm.

You're only closed-minded in that you're stubbornly refusing to accept people at their word and apparently have a burning desire to twist this into some vast left-wing conspiracy against good, clean, white authors. I'm gobsmacked that you honestly don't seem to get it. It's not about reading the right books. At all. It's about challenging people to try reading outside their comfort zone for a short time and seek out non-white, non-male writers. That's it. You make it sound like the Illuminati and the Masons have joined forces to come to your home and will clear out your personal library.

Not a conspiracy against good clean white authors, a public shaming of those that read too many good, clean white authors. My point is that the challenge is as meaningful as urging people to eat outside their comfort zone and try more ethnic foods. Maybe some people would enjoy it, maybe some wouldn't, but whether one decides to try it or not is NOT an indication of them being close-minded and could be due to any number of reasons (taste, food allergies, whatever). I got this from you:

'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.

You are right here saying I have a closed mind because I won't go out of my way to read authors you have deemed outside my comfort zone (specifically in the context of this thread, not enough minorities). I take offense to that. If you like the challenge and think it has value, fine, argue for that. But you cross the line when you state that people that feel differently about the value of the challenge are all inherently close-minded because you are making sweeping generalizations about people with little supporting evidence. You don't know why most people won't go out of their way to accept this challenge, yet you claim it's because we're all close-minded and dismiss the notion espoused by many posters here that it's got nothing to do with closed-mindedness and everything to do with our reading tastes.

 

[Hex]

You're right. Let's all make this non-personal and agree that we're not attacking each other for our reading (or eating) choices.

If everyone's happy with that, let's proceed.

If not, please walk away from this thread.

 

[soulsinging]

I should have said (which was what I meant) that no one here was judging you.

Actually, the poster I'm debating specifically said that anyone that's not interested in going out of their way to read more diverse authors is close-minded... since I've said I'm not interested in going out of my way to make this kind of effort, it rather felt like that judgment was being applied to me. That's the only reason I reacted so strongly. But I guess I've made myself heard enough now, so I'll leave the discussion to others more capable of bringing it back on point

 

[Randy M.]

This in essence is what I was trying to say badly, I'm not against people widening horizons or spring's aims.
I'm sceptical that reading books for entertainment is much related to gender or cultural or ethnic equalisation or whatever. Or that reading black feminist fiction is useful to help me treat women better or give them equality or whatever the agenda of these people is.

Ray, this is a tough question, not least because the discussion could cover thousands of reams of paper, and has, so addressing it in a space that asks for brevity -- longer than twittering, shorter than some formal letters, maybe equivalent to detailed email -- is probably a suckers' bet.

Sucker I am, I'll point out a couple of implications in your responses that may be tough to defend:

1) Reading fiction for entertainment: Sure we read for entertainment, but does that mean that's all we read fiction for? (My best guess would be: Some of us yes, some no; some of us with more awareness of layering in a given work than others; some with awareness like a radio signal, going in and out, given fluctuations in the reader and the reader's circumstances at the time.) Does that mean that is all those books do to us as readers (consciously or un-) when we read them? Can/does such fiction question or reinforce our assumptions when we read it? Can something that questions assumption still be entertaining?

Easiest example I can come up with of a pernicious attitude embedded in "entertainment" fiction is to point out the fiction from the 1920s through the 1970s (not coincidentally the time period during which sf/f as we know it now developed) that essentially cast women in one of four roles, prostitute (or "loose" floozy), girl friend/wife, mother, crone (there's a point where those last two blend). There were exceptions, but the bulk of English-language fiction written primarily for entertainment (though frankly literary fiction had similar problems) during that time was written by Caucasian males and did not challenge the cultural assumption that women were not cut out for the work place much less capable of running a business. Real life offered counter-examples, particularly during the years of WWII, but to some degree perception and understanding are still catching up.


2) You seem to imply here and in other posts that fiction written from another perspective is necessarily preachy. Why? Might it not be just a different view of the same (or similar) world?

I don't do literary theory any more, but one of the ideas that stuck with me way back when was fiction of any type as carrier and communicator of cultural and social mores. Really not much different from the view of campfire stories as indirect warning about what might lurk out beyond the fire. Content determined worthy of story-telling and the way in which it is told indicate the reality (including ideals) surrounding the writer; it can be like archeological strata.

On a personal level, early on I found fiction an interesting expansion of my view of the world. In some cases it offered a perspective on wealth and success different from what I received from family, in others it introduced me to personality types (however exaggerated or poorly sketched) that forearmed me when dealing with some of the people I ran into in real life. It has occurred to me often over the last few years that I fall into ruts of reading, so your point about what someone is reading at a specific time is legit. But the uses and effects of fiction on its readers, that we may disagree on. Respectfully, I hope.

Teresa:

Nobody is saying that anyone should track all the books they read. But to concentrate on diversity for a while as an exercise, that is something that has some merit. At least for those who are interested. (And for those who aren't interested, why worry about it? Carry on with what you are doing. Nobody is going to judge you, because nobody is going to know what you are or are not reading unless you choose to trumpet it about.) For those who choose to do it, it could be eye-opening and perhaps introduce them to writers they would never have otherwise discovered, writers it turns out that they like. It's not a lot different from someone saying to themselves, "I think I will spend the next six months books reading Classical Greek and Roman authors, since that's something I'd like to learn more about."

If you have already studied women's literature and non-European literature, why would you think the suggestion was leveled at you? Why feel defensive? You've done the very thing that is being suggested here, and more. And since you presumably found your studies interesting and valuable -- otherwise, why would you have wasted your time -- why argue against even a limited commitment by others to do the same? Why not encourage them by offering some of the insights you gained? I think it would be fascinating if you were to share.

However, the point of this thread is to ask people what they are reading now and who wrote it. Just to see if it might be revealing. That's a long way from asking anyone to track all their reading.

One of the most level-headed, even-keeled posts in the discussion so far. Thank you.

Randy M.

 

[MWagner]

It's not about reading the right books. At all. It's about challenging people to try reading outside their comfort zone for a short time and seek out non-white, non-male writers. That's it. You make it sound like the Illuminati and the Masons have joined forces to come to your home and will clear out your personal library.

The presumption here is that gender and race fundamentally shape creative outlook in a way the myriad other ways we differ do not. It's not a presumption I can get on-board with, not leastwise because it feeds into the very notion of group identity trumping individual that we're trying to move past. I can't reconcile the principle that we should not make any assumptions or collective judgement of people based on gender or ethnicity, with a model of identity politics which argues that it's essential to understand the experience of women and minorities as women and minorities.

If I lump together five Asian writers whose work I've disliked and say "I don't like fiction by Asian writers," that's likely to be denounced as racist. But if I haven't read any Asian authors, then I should do so promptly in order to get an insight that I can't get from non-Asian writers? Does not compute.

And if we really want SFF readers to step out of their comfort zone, we'd get a wider breadth of exposure by encouraging them to give a non-fiction book a try. A Distant Mirror. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A Natural History of the Senses. Or fantastic fiction written before 1970. Or a mystery novel. Or a play. That's likely to expose readers who haven't read in those areas before to more varied points of view than a fantasy novel written by a woman in 2014.

 

[Toby Frost]

And if we really want SFF readers to step out of their comfort zone, we'd get a wider breadth of exposure by encouraging them to give a non-fiction book a try

I think this is a very sensible comment. There are certain aspects where SFF has lagged behind other genres and other types of writing for a long time. By reading other sorts of book, instead of concentrating on the nature of the authors, you can learn a huge amount about writing and other “worlds”. I’ve been reading some very good crime novels recently which do things that I’ve not seen in SF and wish that I did see there, as well as some factual books that have been fascinating.

I can understand why everyone should be allowed a fair go at writing SF (or anything else) no matter what their background is. I agree. But if the point of reading SF becomes largely about the background of the author, wouldn’t it just be easier to actually read about real life in different places or communities, and then enjoy whatever fiction you like for whatever reason you like, guilt-free? Or am I missing something here? I hate to sound cynical, but I think a lot of the “issues of diversity” that haunt SF at the moment would be better tackled by reading outside SF, particularly in history and current affairs (and perhaps then giving to charity if appropriate).

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that the original idea is bad or that people shouldn't do it. I just think that, while it might be a good way to support certain writers, there are probably better ways of expanding your world-view.

 

[tinkerdan]

I just 'accidentally' read Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte.
No. Seriously. It was an accident. I was searching for a quote and somehow my search landed midst the html page on Gutenberg for Jane Eyre and I scrolled to the top and started reading and got sucked in right up to the end and it took two concentrated sittings to get there. So I refute any argument that a person can't accidentally read something.

I quite accidentally enjoyed it too.

I've recently spent a lot of time reading self-published works. I do not chose by author title or blurb. I read the beginning pages and if I get far enough in without nodding off to sleep or getting too distracted by the cat playing with string... My interest in authors only comes up after reading something I really enjoy and looking for more of their writing and then I search for a website or other on line connection where they might have a list.

I only read English( by some weird default that's all I can read.) Even so; I've encountered some English I can't read. But if something is translated well there is a better chance I'll read it eventually.

As to ethnicity and sex-my authors are all of staunch writer stock:the kind that can string two sentence together and get my attention.

Since I don't generally follow what's on the top ten or twenty list I have to pretty much take the blame for only reading those books that entertain me, so if that makes me some sort of literary bigot: then so be it.

It's not who you read; it's what you read.

Note:
I had to edit to change two distracted to too distracted; but on reflection I realize that the cat alone doesn't distract nor does the string: put the "two" together and there is no end to chaos those two unaccountable creatures can create.
Did I ever tell you the story of Schrodinger's Cat and the String Theory?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

You seem to imply here and in other posts that fiction written from another perspective is necessarily preachy. Why? Might it not be just a different view of the same (or similar) world?

Fiction written to promote a viewpoint (primarily) rather than entertain (primarily), is preachy and obtaining money by false pretences. There are far better ways to learn about programming, relationships, medicine, mechanical engineering, gender, biology, ethnicity, war, history, cruelty, justice, mathematics, religion, atheism etc than reading fiction.

 

[tinkerdan]

Still: I would find it hard to separate all that out::

Fiction written to promote a viewpoint (primarily) rather than entertain (primarily), is preachy and obtaining money by false pretences. There are far better ways to learn about programming, relationships, medicine, mechanical engineering, gender, biology, ethnicity, war, history, cruelty, justice, mathematics, religion, atheism etc than reading fiction.

::And I'd find myself tossing out Heinlein and Bronte and a host of others and you can't make me do that.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Heinlein and Bronte

I'd not find them guilty, primarily entertainment. The fact that I have various works by all four, though I prefer Charlotte.

 

[Randy M.]

Fiction written to promote a viewpoint (primarily) rather than entertain (primarily), is preachy and obtaining money by false pretences.

This assumes only one legitimate reason for writing fiction: To entertain. Given my experience reading fiction, I find that too narrow and an unsatisfying explanation of what fiction is and does. You seem intent on limiting the range of what fiction should do, if not what it can do.

Or possibly you're limiting the range of what constitutes entertainment. That is more subjective and I'd gladly leave it at an agreement to disagree.

There are far better ways to learn about programming, relationships, medicine, mechanical engineering, gender, biology, ethnicity, war, history, cruelty, justice, mathematics, religion, atheism etc than reading fiction.

Your response to Tinkerdan just came in: If you go by "primarily entertainment," then I'd suggest The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories by Angela Carter which is primarily entertainment; just ignore the underlying feminism.

For a broader answer, I'll transition to a response I was cobbling together for MWagner.

The presumption here is that gender and race fundamentally shape creative outlook in a way the myriad other ways we differ do not. It's not a presumption I can get on-board with, not leastwise because it feeds into the very notion of group identity trumping individual that we're trying to move past. I can't reconcile the principle that we should not make any assumptions or collective judgement of people based on gender or ethnicity, with a model of identity politics which argues that it's essential to understand the experience of women and minorities as women and minorities.

If I lump together five Asian writers whose work I've disliked and say "I don't like fiction by Asian writers," that's likely to be denounced as racist. But if I haven't read any Asian authors, then I should do so promptly in order to get an insight that I can't get from non-Asian writers? Does not compute.

Yeah, I'd refer you back to Teresa's discussion and narrow it to just this forum: No demands, just a question and its up to you whether you think it's of interest or not.

Anyway, this discussion has probably centered on gender and race because they are relatively easily digested chunks of larger issues. I think it's more complicated than gender and race because those are only two of the vectors determining the individual; others include but are probably not limited to social, cultural, religious and political (broadest sense of the word) factors in combination with individual "wiring"; and lets not forget the importance of language as a carrier of values. When people share similar influences from these vectors the probability of them being in agreement on issues is greater than the probability of agreement with people who had different influences. Which is not to say all individuals sharing a similar background will agree on all things or that people from different backgrounds cannot agree on anything. The former contributes to the constant dialog between people of any one culture/society/faith/etc. defining and refining and redefining their views. The latter means more good faith negotiation and discussion to arrive at agreements and compromises.

We may believe in individualism, but individuals still have a context: You may or may not be unique, but you certainly share similar traits, mannerisms, thought processes, and/or etc., etc. with others, most probably with those in close proximity. This provides a local flavor (from something as broad as "Bostonians" to "people from our south side"), and contributes to identifying regionality and nationality.

And if we really want SFF readers to step out of their comfort zone, we'd get a wider breadth of exposure by encouraging them to give a non-fiction book a try. A Distant Mirror. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A Natural History of the Senses. Or fantastic fiction written before 1970. Or a mystery novel. Or a play. That's likely to expose readers who haven't read in those areas before to more varied points of view than a fantasy novel written by a woman in 2014.

Wouldn't disagree with this, either. I have limited reading time and I've been recently aware of and not entirely happy with the (mostly) unconscious choice I've made to read primarily fiction. But even non-fiction is tricky if you concede the truism that history is written by the winners. Also, no writer of non-fiction is without filters: How do you choose which facts to give precedence and why downplay some other facts? Again, to get a more or less accurate view of a subject, the best bet seems to be to read widely on the subject, including a broad range of authors. Which is essentially the argument made for fiction: Read widely for the best triangulation.

I'm not so sure anyone here will throw out the straw man of "it's just fiction," but just in case I'll state my view now: No, it's not. Fiction is a legitimate part -- along with poetry, philosophy, sociology, psychology, the hard sciences and math (and the ones Ray lists) -- of mankind's long conversation across generations of just who and what we are, what our world/universe is, and what our place in the world/universe is. Literature, even entertainment fiction, occupies a particular niche in that conversation that can't be duplicated by the others.

Randy M.

 

[Brian G Turner]

spring's initial post was somewhat vague - we see so many people become self-styled demagogues of moral superiority that it's easy to become defensive when we see yet another suggestion that our - generally liberal and open-minded - SFF community appears to be the target of yet another self-serving crusade.

However, trying to look into this, my reading is that the whole discussion began (this time) by a general movement to expand horizons in reading in general - specifically, the We Need Diverse Books campaign:
http://weneeddiversebooks.tumblr.com/

It's not specifically aimed at SFF readers, but a general call for the wider public to consider broadening their reading horizons:
http://weneeddiversebooks.tumblr.com/post/113876997572/response-to-telegraph-uk-article

On March 14th, 2015, The Telegraph published an article titled “Are you reading too many books by straight white men”. The article states that “a growing online voice is imploring readers to stop buying books written by white, heterosexual men” before incorrectly implying that We Need Diverse Books™, by seeking to amplify the voices of diverse authors and diverse books, is taking “things a stage further.”

We Need Diverse Books™ is committed to the ideal that embracing diversity in literature will lead to acceptance, empathy, and ultimately equality. However, we do not attempt to dictate the reading habits of any individual. Instead, we strive to make readers more aware of the diverse options available to them, and we encourage readers to embrace stories from ALL walks of life. WNDB is not anti-straight white men. This distinction seems to have been lost on the author of the piece, which is unfortunate; however, if he’s ever in search of a good read, we’d be happy to give him some suggestions.

There's hardly anything offensive in that sort of mission statement.

Additionally, the Guardian was mentioned, and I eventually found this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ors-for-12-months-what-i-learned-surprised-me

In that, Sunili Govinnage talks about how she dedicated her reading in 2014 to reading authors "of colour" to specifically get a better idea of what might be out there. And the result?

Instead of my usual crime/procedural/legal thrillers, I actually read some science fiction. And some fantasy. And I loved it. Saladin Ahmed’s Throne of the Crescent Moon and Nnedi Okorafor’s Who Fears Death are now two of my favourite books. I would never have heard of them had I not deliberately sought them out.

She's broken her own prejudices about science fiction and fantasy. Hoo-ray!

I know many people on chrons have personally challenged themselves to read widely, and outside of their comfort zone - anyone with a serious interest in becoming a genre writer needs to read widely, both within and outside of their target genre.

However, what anyone on chrons actually reads is entirely according to their own personal preference, goals, and desires. The fact that many of us are reading - and regularly - already sets us apart in society. I can only hope that it catches on a little more.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I was aware of the We Need Diverse Books campaign when I posted.

I'm sorry if it was a bit insipid, in terms of what I was looking for, but I didn't want to start a flame war like what is going on elsewhere but rather have something perhaps comfy and cosier and perhaps a wider conversation than ranting on the back of it.

Hey-ho, not every thread idea can work.