Perceptions of equity in sff

[Brian G Turner]

think for me it would be feeling that, as woman in the genre, I had as many opportunities, to feel that being a woman no longer counted against me or that I am excluded from some of -again sf in particular - networking

I totally feel for you, and I've worried about what sort of casual prejudice - or, at least, apathy - you might face from male readers.

Thinking hard about it today, my current thinking is that it might be better to rebrand yourself as a strong YA author, rather than a science fiction writer.

The main reason being that you focus more on character than setting, which is something I see more in YA, such as Suzanne Collin's Hunger Games and Sabaa Tahir's Ember in Ashes.

Additionally, you write in different settings - Abendau, Inish, Waters in the Wild, and other pieces you've put up in crits. Calling yourself a YA author would allow you to remain flexible with these. But if you defined yourself as a science fiction only writer, you would be in danger of losing a chunk of your audience with each different project, and have to also call yourself a fantasy author some of the time.

There's also a narrow mindset of science fiction readers who reject anything that's not hard SF. More to the point, they are a significant chunk of that readership - as you've no doubt seen on discussions here.

So describing yourself to others as following in the footsteps of JK Rowling, Suzanne Collins, and - well, maybe not Stephanie Meyer - I would suggest would do you far more favours professionally, not least in developing a following.

I know you have Carter's POV in Inish, but IMO that shouldn't disallow it from being YA, any more than Game of Thrones must be YA because more than half the initial cast are under 18.

The fact that you're getting a revamp on the covers I think shows you're aware of all this on some level.

So my question is, how would you feel about it? Would you be happy if I said you were a flexible YA author who can do both science fiction and fantasy settings? Or would you rather I say you're sometimes a science fiction author and sometimes not?

2c.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

@Brian G Turner - the trouble with that plan is that I don't write YA. Sure, Inish is on the edge of it but it is the only one. Abendau is adult (despite having some sections in a YA pov) and so is Waters (or my YA agent would have had a notion about how to sell it - since it ended up with several offers on the table). There's no point in me branding myself something I'm not - but perhaps a foray into fantasy will feel different. Certainly, from the Irish market there is a lot of interest in Waters already - before I've even started to promote it - and the cover is very, very good.

But as well as the small matter of me being a bad fit (I have marketed Inish to the YA market but it is the adult market who purchase it) the very fact we're asking if it would be more viable for me to be a YA writer rather than sf because of a character focus (which many women have) in my books says everything about how equitable the market is.

But i don't think writing both sf and fantasy is a problem - many authors do so successfully.

 

[Abernovo]

Hmm, with respect, Brian, isn't that taking the view that exclusion is acceptable? If you don't fit the mould set by the 'establishment' you should set your sights on a different goal?

I'm pretty sure it's not how you view the world, but this comes to close to pandering to the set who thinks their ideas should be set in stone, and some writers - and readers - don't really belong. Or at best, should just keep their mouths shut.

It starts with 'it's not hard sf/it's not realistically Mediaeval fantasy' (even though I don't remember dragons in the Middle Ages), and ends where? Is your writing good enough for the Puritans? If so, are they really people you'd want to ally yourself with? Even tangentially?

 

[Glitch]

In regards to the question of "Its access to publication" I can only answer for the magazine. There's no bias towards the authors race/gender in selecting shorts.

Currently published on the magazine the quick figures are - authors for male/female are 68/32, stories published by male/female (excluding the series) are 57/43. Although there are more male authors on the magazine. Female authors have more stories per author published.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Hmm, with respect, Brian, isn't that taking the view that exclusion is acceptable? If you don't fit the mould set by the 'establishment' you should set your sights on a different goal?

I was simply wondering if Jo was trying to push a square peg through a round hole, simply because publishers have their own ideas of what constitutes genre definitions - and that they don't always equate with what readers might think. And vice versa.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I was simply wondering if Jo was trying to push a square peg through a round hole, simply because publishers have their own ideas of what constitutes genre definitions - and that they don't always equate with what readers might think. And vice versa.

I think though considering I've been agented and had multiple offers on all my books (not to say decent sales and great reviews) I'd reckon the industry - and most readers who've had a look - find my peg is probably in the right place. I'm one of the lucky ladies - I have publisher support (which aided me in getting funding this year with great support in my application), I've had tons of support in the industry including in the convention community and the military sf community and numerous forums.

So why am I bringing it up then, says everyone? Because it's not just about me as a pretty established, profitable, writer - it's about the genre and why there aren't more of me.

 

[Dan Jones]

@Jo Zebedee I've got some responses on this but I'm at the pub with Glonka Dave and will be half cut so till respond properly later x

 

[Jo Zebedee]

@Jo Zebedee I've got some responses on this but I'm at the pub with Glonka Dave and will be half cut so till respond properly later x

Looks forward to that immensely. Don't sober up first!

 

[Gary Compton]

Well, what can I say. If as a publisher I have to have all women in the stable, that won't be a problem for me. Don't want to be controversial cos I am a blokee myself but I find women authors more focused and more driven. Now I don't know if that's because of what Jo has said but it's true.

No disrespect to men authors at TBP but take a leaf out of Jo's book - that's the way to do it (Do I sound like a parrot there). Generally, men tend to sit back and wait for it to happen (now that's not all so don't get your knickers in a twist cos it might not be you ).

So good luck to the ladies. We at TBP have a women Sci-fi platform coming soon so watch out for it!

 

[MWagner]

Something that's forgotten in all the discussion about lack of equity in representation of writers is the makeup of readers. Women account for 65 to 80 per cent of the fiction market (depending on who you ask). The largest fiction genre by publications per year is romance, whose audience is 90 per cent female. Other major genres like mystery and literary fiction have mostly female readership. SF may be one of the only remaining genres that remains mostly male in readership.

To me, this is the most troubling disparity in fiction. I was at a book store recently, and the second largest section was Teen (aka YA). The section was huge, and by my estimate 90 per cent of the books in it were aimed at young women. In the age at which most boys give up reading entirely, the market caters almost exclusively girls. Reading novels for pleasure has become a largely gendered activity, which may escape our notice ensconced in one of the only remaining genres men still read.

 

[Toby Frost]

That's an interesting question.

Your answer is a good one, I think, but also unfortunately I reckon it might take a long time for things to be as you'd like. To put it bluntly, you might be waiting for one generation to die off, while hoping that another generation isn't overrun with sickos of the Vox Day variety (I doubt it will be). I have no idea how excluded you would be in SF circles: I'm not really part of the fan scene and don't greatly want to be. I don't know how SF networking works, as my own experiences with conventions and the like left me thinking that it wasn't really for me, and that real SF appreciation (as opposed to fandom of TV, pop culture etc) was hard to get into anyhow if you hadn't been in it for 20 years already.

So why am I bringing it up then, says everyone?

I slightly resent the implication that we don't want you to bring it up. You're welcome to, although I don't think what you're asking is one question: it's several different ones, all of which are about women in SFF (assuming that we're not talking 'equitable' in some wider sense). And on that note, I think I am going to leave the discussion for now. The topic is simply too big, I think, for one thread. I hope your experience improves.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I slightly resent the implication that we don't want you to bring it up. You're welcome to, although I don't think what you're asking is one question: it's several different ones, all of which are about women in SFF (assuming that we're not talking 'equitable' in some wider sense). And on that note, I think I am going to leave the discussion for now. The topic is simply too big, I think, for one thread. I hope your experience improves.

Well, actually, I started the thread about equity in general, not just women - but that seems to be where it went. And I certainly didn't want to make anyone feel resentful - I simply meant that I maybe sounded like I'm whinging when I am actually having a blast and am a very happy little author (and also trying, perhaps heavy handedly, to move the thread's focus from me).

I think @MWagner brings up a really interesting point. I'm focusing in sff, but the wider reading world is a very different market place - and, particularly male YA is a poor market place for readers.

 

[MWagner]

The fact authorship skews male while readership skews heavily female poses some interesting questions:

• Is there something about writing or the publishing industry that makes it more difficult or unlikely for women to achieve publication?
• Women don't seem to have much problem reading books written by men. Can we say the same for men about books written by women?
• How does genre play into this? There seems to be genres where female authors do best (YA, Urban Fantasy, Romance, Historical Fiction of the non-military bent), genres where it doesn't seem to matter (Mystery, Traditional Fantasy), and genres that skew male (SF, Grimdark Fantasy, Military Fiction). What challenges do authors face writing in a genre that skews away from their gender?

 

[Theophania Elliott]

it's about the genre and why there aren't the more of me.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens in the next 5-10 years. One of the good things about indie publishing is that anybody can do it who wants to. It's no longer viable to say "I can't get my book published because I'm female/of X ethnic origin/of Y sexuality" - if you want to publish, go indie. It's not the last resort of the desperate the way it was fifteen years ago.

So if, in 10 years' time, there is still a majority of any particular gender/sexuality/race above and beyond the relevant societal proportion, this is probably evidence that at least some of the "bias" is in who is writing, not who is being published. After all, different people want different things out of life. Not all cultures prize the same pursuits (just ask a teacher about which parents want their little darlings to be doctors).

I think an excellent way to help end discrimination in all directions would be to encourage the organizations that currently exclude indie authors - the prize committees, the author organizations, the conventions - to reconsider their policy. If you are only selecting your members from a group that has already been winnowed out by a gatekeeper, then your membership will reflect the gatekeeper's choices. And if you suspect that the gatekeeper may be being less than even-handed, then why are you still letting them pick your members?

The indie route is the only route to publication that has no barriers to publication for anyone. Of course, like any other author, you then have to get an audience to read your stuff - but every author has that problem, and it's up to every author to find their audience. For authors with an unusual angle, that may be an advantage rather than the reverse: after all, the world is full of books, and being unusual helps a book to stand out from the crowd. Somewhere, there will be people looking for books about that very thing...

 

[Toby Frost]

So much for leaving the thread.

I simply meant that I maybe sounded like I'm whinging when I am actually having a blast and am a very happy little author

Don't worry about that. In a way, you're in a similar situation to me, I suspect: very pleased with the success that you've had, but looking to build and grow as a writer. That's difficult, but I do hesitate sometimes to say so. It can feel a bit like saying that you'd like a helicopter to go with your Rolls Royce.

Women don't seem to have much problem reading books written by men. Can we say the same for men about books written by women?

One thing that strikes me about the YA issue is that a lot of it seems very teenage-girl-centric, even supposed action stories like The Hunger Games. Sooner or later, it will become teen romance, with the inevitable good boy/bad boy conflict, the overwrought emotions and all of that. It just seems to be the case that women like romance (in books) much more than men, whether or not it's well written.

I get the feeling that, while women and girls are happy to read a wide range of stuff, men are more easily put off, and some things are an absolute "no". So while a book about a Ripley/Furiosa/Brienne type character kicking ass (and quite possibly getting the other sort of action) would generally be fine, if it turned into a romance (especially a teen romance) a lot of male readers would drop it at once. There are a few emotions that seem connected to romance that men don't seem to have anywhere near as much as women (generally): in particular, caring much about who ends up with who (it's amazing how much talk in fandom seems to be about imagining which popular characters would date each other) and - I actually find this hard to explain, it's so alien - the sense of being thrilled by your own weakness compared to the male lead's strength, which I suppose is another way of saying being swept off your feet.

 

[MWagner]

One thing that strikes me about the YA issue is that a lot of it seems very teenage-girl-centric, even supposed action stories like The Hunger Games. Sooner or later, it will become teen romance, with the inevitable good boy/bad boy conflict, the overwrought emotions and all of that. It just seems to be the case that women like romance (in books) much more than men, whether or not it's well written.

I get the feeling that, while women and girls are happy to read a wide range of stuff, men are more easily put off, and some things are an absolute "no". So while a book about a Ripley/Furiosa/Brienne type character kicking ass (and quite possibly getting the other sort of action) would generally be fine, if it turned into a romance (especially a teen romance) a lot of male readers would drop it at once. There are a few emotions that seem connected to romance that men don't seem to have anywhere near as much as women (generally): in particular, caring much about who ends up with who (it's amazing how much talk in fandom seems to be about imagining which popular characters would date each other)

Agreed on all points. I don't think young men care all that much about the gender of the protagonist and other characters. But they do find romance off-putting. To the point where they don't really want any of it in their stories. I don't have any greater authority on that than my own preferences as a young man, those of my friends, and now my young son. It's also the best explanation I've seen for why young men dislike the YA fare that's so popular today. Conversely, my guess is a writer who expects to find popular success among an audience of young women without any romance in the story would be paddling up-stream against a strong current.

I actually find this hard to explain, it's so alien - the sense of being thrilled by your own weakness compared to the male lead's strength, which I suppose is another way of saying being swept off your feet.

The romantic trope I find absolutely baffling is 'redeeming the bad boy.' That it's more appealing to turn a bad boy nice than to choose a nice boy. It's in everything from Jane Austen and Emily Bronte to Buffy and Twilight. I'm missing some essential dramatic element to all those stories. Some key character motivation. I've queried my wife about this again and again, and she can't really express the appeal. It must be something primal and potent, beyond the ken of most men.

 

[Parson]

The romantic trope I find absolutely baffling is 'redeeming the bad boy.' That it's more appealing to turn a bad boy nice than to choose a nice boy. It's in everything from Jane Austen and Emily Bronte to Buffy and Twilight. I'm missing some essential dramatic element to all those stories. Some key character motivation. I've queried my wife about this again and again, and she can't really express the appeal. It must be something primal and potent, beyond the ken of most men.

Well said. Could it be that its much more exciting and fulfilling to flirt with danger and tame it, then to make a rational original choice?

 

[HareBrain]

The romantic trope I find absolutely baffling is 'redeeming the bad boy.' That it's more appealing to turn a bad boy nice than to choose a nice boy. It's in everything from Jane Austen and Emily Bronte to Buffy and Twilight. I'm missing some essential dramatic element to all those stories. Some key character motivation. I've queried my wife about this again and again, and she can't really express the appeal. It must be something primal and potent, beyond the ken of most men.

Isn't it a variant on defeating the monster and winning the treasure, but focused on emotional interaction rather than hitting it with a sword?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But - again - isn't there room for both? Dune does it well. I like my derring do action and I don't like my romance heavy handed - but I do like to know the characters.

 

[MWagner]

Isn't it a variant on defeating the monster and winning the treasure, but focused on emotional interaction rather than hitting it with a sword?

Holy crap. That makes perfect sense! I'm gonna have to go back and watch Wuthering Heights again.