Perceptions of equity in sff

[The Big Peat]

*shakes fist at Harebrain* Curse you for ninja-ing me. What more potent an example of a woman's charm, character, desirability and so on can there be than to genuinely change the way someone lives and acts? I mean, that stuff is near-impossible in the real world. And there's a lot of stuff telling women that nothing they are or do is as admirable as their ability to be charming, character, desirable, etc.etc. A lot of stuff otherwise of course, probably a great deal more these days, but its still there.

I'm sure there's a lot more to the love of romance but it sure looks part of it to me.

Here's the thing though. Some dudes do love the romance. Some dudettes love the overthrow of an evil overlord by violent fantastical methods*. If they wanna write it, should they have to pretend to be the other gender just to get some financial love from the fans? Okay, they don't have to... but you don't have to dope to win the yellow jersey either. Sure does help though!

Pretending to be a round peg shouldn't get people places. For anyone.

And, hand to heart, I'm not sure indie publishing is gonna change that, at least at the top. It feels like there's a long way from good indie niche to being an Abercrombie. Some make it but most of the big names were anointed from the first book.

 

[The Big Peat]

Ah! I forgot to follow up on the tangent with the asterisk and the edit time has passed. So sorry for the double post but -

Arguably, overthrow of an evil overlord by violent fantastical methods = most of conventional fantasy. From there you can split it into two; resistance of the outsider evil overlord and rebellion against the non-outsider evil overlord. I am simplifying a *lot* here but its mostly there.

The former trends towards being conservative; the latter progressive. There's an ideological split right at the heart of the genre. A small one really, but its a seed for people to use for their own ideological struggles as with the puppies.

Or at least that's my theory. Not much to do with the thread but fun to consider.

 

[Theophania Elliott]

That it's more appealing to turn a bad boy nice than to choose a nice boy.

I always thought it was about power: the woman takes the man and remakes him according to her own will, regardless of his will or consent. By the end of the book, to outward appearances, he might be the "dominant" one, but actually, she's calling the shots. I've never been able to see the appeal, either: that kind of manipulation is just nasty. Plus, I don't believe it: nobody is going to change that much once they get to be the age to be a romantic hero.

Interesting parallel with BDSM, actually - the submissive is the one who is in ultimate control because they can call things off whenever they like. Except, in BDSM it's consensual and both sides get something out of it.

 

[Toby Frost]

Plus, I don't believe it: nobody is going to change that much once they get to be the age to be a romantic hero.

Okay, the thread is pretty derailed as it is, but on this I'd say: there's an analogy with pornography here. The thrills that pornography provides aren't about telling a realistic story and don't need to be: being a washing-machine repairman in real life doesn't mean that you will have endless sex with bored housewives (I'm guessing). Similarly, people virtually never hate each other at first sight in real life and end up lovers, and a man who is sullen and angry is almost certainly going to stay that way no matter what. But in pornography, realism doesn't matter so long as that thrill is delivered. I would say the same thing about the less realistic end of romance and grimdark: the thrills matter more than logic or believeability. And at that point, I won't be interested. It's preaching to the converted, so to speak, and I'm not looking for those thrills.

 

[Hex]

I think it's also about conflict -- really nice boys (as in boys who would be nice in real life) don't mess about and so you know where you are with them and there's no conflict because it's all so straightforward. You can provide conflict through love triangles, but that's tiresome and overdone in YA.

I haven't encountered that many really good romances where both characters thoroughly nice (though there are some -- Cinda Williams Chima writes really good fantasy with a strong romance element where both characters are very sympathetic but kept apart by their situations), but on the other hand, Wuthering Heights has always confused me because Heathcliff is so awful. If you use the situation, it's more about that (=fantasy or whatever with romance sub-plot) and less about the fundamental relationship between the characters (=romance).

Jane Austen's heroes tended to be more likeable -- men who are a bit silly about something (Darcy is a bit arrogant, Wentworth is resentful and angry) but who are clearly good people who want to do the honourable thing.

The issue with romance is that it's the process of coming together that is the story -- once the protagonists have got together, it's not very interesting any more so you need to hold off on that for as long as possible, which means someone has to be being a bit unreasonable and usually it's the man because men tend to get away with being more unreasonable and still being attractive and sympathetic fictional characters.

And the dislike-turning-to-attraction thing does happen. @HareBrain has a fancy name for it (or possibly a fancy and coherent explanation).


(also, arguably, turning a bad boy nice only works for as long as you can deal with it -- it's a constant edge of danger without safety. Snagging a good guy isn't as dramatic really, because any really good guy can see the fundamental attractiveness of a heroine)

 

[HareBrain]

And the dislike-turning-to-attraction thing does happen. @HareBrain has a fancy name for it (or possibly a fancy and coherent explanation).

This provoked a big brow-beetled "what, me?" but it turns out you're right!

Introducing a love interest.

 

[Dan Jones]

Hey Jo, I know I said I'd respond a few days ago. Sadly, I have sobered up, not that I think I'd have been any more inflammatory when inebriated, though I might have peppered the post with more pictures of Eddie Murphy.

That's an interesting question. I said in my blog post - and meant it - that I didn't feel there needed to be 50-50 sf written by women (and my blog was about sf specifically). Fewer women write sf. We know that - from Brian's stats and from any publisher asked about sf submissions. So it's not that. I

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 (and, if you watch a lot of sf networking it is the same authors promoting each other, calling out for each other and they are mostly men. Like by a huge majority). I don't want to have to go and find women to make a sf network of my own - I want to feel I'm part of the community, not a different part or one of the ladies, or whatever*. (And not see posts about Rae as a lamppost when no one made the same posts about Luke who was, frankly, just as animate. Or see casual sexism in comments about tv series and films.)

So I suppose equity for me is in terms of not feeling like my gender is a barrier to being read because women writing sf is seen as normal. I'd also like to see more female writers because I think - genuinely - there are some who are put off by the mountain ahead and only by creating acceptability and role models will we extend our community. So, for me, it's about equity of acceptance rather than any degree of publishing numbers or anything else.

* but I also think it's really important to say that I think things are shifting. We get more female voices on panels now at conventions. There are fewer women - I think, it's always hard to know - feeling the need to take a male pen name. I'd just like to see that continuing to grow.

What struck me about this post, and perfectly encapsulates the unknowable, movable, shifting centre ground, or happy medium, is that in this post you've used the word "feel' or "feeling" six times. That demonstrates to me that, even with the statistics tossed up by Brian, it's essentially a subjective experience as to whether an individual person feels part of a particular community. What's sauce for the goose isn't necessarily sauce for the gander here. Another person who has the same amount of experience, voice, and success as you've had, might feel completely different, might feel completely embraced, equal, loved even, or whatever feelings they would use to measure these things.

And when you're striving to attain a subjective experience, it's impossible for that to be engineered by external forces. Or can something as profound as a feeling, and a sense of self, be based upon statistical parity?

For what it's worth, I think you're a hugely valuable, valued and successful member of this community and I daresay other communities, too. I wouldn't have the temerity of speak on your behalf, natch, but it's just my perception.

Oh, go on then...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Gives @DG Jones a big hug on the way out the door. (That would have been much more entertaining when drunk. It could have been a big squishy post. )

 

[Dan Jones]

I doubt that - it would more likely to have been riddled with spelling errors, strange autocorrects and bizarre grammar! I'll take the hug though

 

[Ursa major]

I can see how, in Romance, where the romance is the main, consuming, point of the story (I assume; I don't read Romance), one has to do something to up the ante/conflict and so make the "proper" resolution initially look less likely and thus more satisfying when it arrives, but one would have thought that if romance is not the main point of a story (as in SFF), but is still a very important aspect, there's less need for the turn the "bad" guy into the right life partner (or whatever) trope.

In a sort of derail -- well, switching genre and medium -- one of my favourite films is Hobson's Choice (the 1954** version with Charles Laughton and John Mills, but with Brenda De Banzie playing the main character and driving force of the film). At the risk of giving spoilers -- the film is barely over 60 years old -- the love interest (John Mills) is anything but a bad boy, but his transformation by the MC is perhaps just as satisfying, almost to the point when he's made independent enough to stand up to De Banzie's character. Not being a fantasy (with, say, dragons and/or dark evil overlords to slay, although there is something that is slayed***), does not mean that the stakes have had to be raised beyond reality on the romance front, and yet the whole thing is satisfying, and on many levels.


Now I freely admit that the film (and the 1915 play on which it was based) plays into something I really like in a story -- that someone with intelligence or skill (perhaps not recognised in the way**** it should be by those around that person) can use their nous to make fundamental changes in the way events might otherwise have done -- but even so, I found the romantic aspects of the film satisfying, and that really isn't my thing at all, in general (books or films). Even so, it shows that even without the "girl makes bad boy good" trope, the romance can pack a punch, particularly where other stakes are high (as they often are in much SSF).


** - I'm nothing if not bang up to date.

*** - As it happens. quite a few things are slayed, as De Banzie's character faces challenges and difficulties from society, family and even from those she is also helping (and who know this but take her for granted).

**** - Another example would be Hardy Krüger's character in the romance-free film, The Flight of the Phoenix.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

An interesting post here by Mark Lawrence. Once again that near equity of readership turns up (in this case 55/45%) but is not represented in what people are reading. (Whilst this is fantasy as opposed to sf it is grimdark - another genre absolutely dominated by male writers. I can name a couple of female grimdark writers -mainly because I'm in a grimdark * fb group - but many males.)

* being a female who - horror! - - also writes dark stuff...

My readers' "Best of" list revisited. • /r/Fantasy

 

[Theophania Elliott]

I read mostly urban fantasy, and I'd really like to find actual urban fantasy with an adult (not young adult) female protagonist who isn't either a ditz or a bitch (and thus annoying), and which isn't really paranormal romance. Particularly when the 'romance' relies so heavily on instalove and love triangles.

Kelley Armstrong did it well, the majority of the time, but she's moved into writing (equally good) thrillers. I find myself gravitating towards male writers because they write what I want to read. Harry Dresden might be a bit of an ass at times, but at least he doesn't spend half his time dithering over which of two hot men (or women) he finds the most sexy. Even when he's actually getting some bedroom action, it's decidedly peripheral to actual plot things happening.

I don't know whether that's a result of what is getting written, or what is getting published, but it's depressing. And, to be honest, with the rise of indie publishing, the "poor women being kept out by the gatekeepers" argument is wearing a bit thin. That probably worked really well ten years ago, but not any more. In today's bright new world, if you've got a story, you can publish it. I await detailed genre-specific figures, but Data Guy's latest data is that 71% of the adult fiction market in the US is digital, and 30% of the total adult fiction market (not just 30% of the 71%) is indie.

So where are these women who are writing non-romantic, non-young adult fantasy?

Because if it's not being written, it's not a surprise that fantasy readers of both genders who don't want romance or young adult are reading male authors.

I'd welcome a list of female authors of fantasy that is:
* Not a romance (although I don't object to the MC actually finding somebody attractive, and even doing something about it), but I want actual plot. Hell, I'd even go for a romance that was actually a romance, rather than just sex.
* Not young adult.
* Features an MC of either gender who is not continually getting themselves into trouble through their own lack of self-control (of power, personal life, hormones, etc).

I've come across Annie Bellet's twenty-sided sorceress books, which I will probably get around to trying, although the explicit geek-culture thing rather puts me off because it's completely not my scene.

 

[The Big Peat]

And, to be honest, with the rise of indie publishing, the "poor women being kept out by the gatekeepers" argument is wearing a bit thin.

When it comes to being read widely rather than merely putting your work out there, the gatekeeper at the doors of publishing are not the only gatekeepers (and they're still pretty important for getting read widely). There are also the gatekeepers deciding who to advertise as hard as possible and who to just give a go. I don't think the argument that women are being kept out by the gatekeepers here is wearing thin.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

My own for a start - there are people in them, some in relationships, most too busy dodging bullets or aliens to get it on. Bujold we mentioned in another thread. For darker fantasy Anna Spark Smith gets a lot of call outs.

A few more off the top of my head:

Jodi Taylor, high on my tbr list - time travel I believe
Gillian Flynn crosses into fantasy from time to time - nicely rounded characters, not romance led
Jessie Burton - The Miniturarist has a fascinating female character and an interesting, and challenging, central relationship.
Teresa Edgerton - great female characters.
Jo Walton's Among Others is a great modern fantasy with limited romance (it might crossover to YA but I read it happily as an adult book)

The gatekeeper argument is an interesting one and more problematic. But if females aren't being read widely enough (and I'd admit to, at best, a 50% breakdown - but I don't aim to read exclusively anything, including gender) we should maybe be asking why not. Is it visibility - because Amazon selects who is visible based on algorithms taken from what sells (if they select more males? If so is it because they sell more or there are more - we'd never know). Or is it that we're more used to how men structure books and it's in our comfort zone? Or do men just write better books... (but then why is the sort of bias in sff not seen in all genres?)

I don't have the answers but I suspect some might be uncomfortable in terms of what we've been exposed to as genre readers and, therefore, what feels right within it.

 

[MWagner]

I don't know whether that's a result of what is getting written, or what is getting published, but it's depressing. And, to be honest, with the rise of indie publishing, the "poor women being kept out by the gatekeepers" argument is wearing a bit thin.

I'm not sure the gatekeepers argument is valid even in traditional publishing.

Publishing industry is overwhelmingly white and female, US study finds​

Survey of workforce at 34 book publishers and eight review journals in US reveals 79% of staff are white and 78% female – with UK numbers still unmonitored​

 

[Toby Frost]

* Not a romance (although I don't object to the MC actually finding somebody attractive, and even doing something about it), but I want actual plot. Hell, I'd even go for a romance that was actually a romance, rather than just sex.
* Not young adult.
* Features an MC of either gender who is not continually getting themselves into trouble through their own lack of self-control (of power, personal life, hormones, etc).

And that's pretty much why I avoid urban fantasy and YA altogether. I'm probably missing some good books, but I'm also sure that I'd be missing a lot more books that just aren't for me.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm not sure the gatekeepers argument is valid even in traditional publishing.

Publishing industry is overwhelmingly white and female, US study finds​

Survey of workforce at 34 book publishers and eight review journals in US reveals 79% of staff are white and 78% female – with UK numbers still unmonitored​

Yes - the staff are. But at what levels. Plus, this is only a valid argument if those women are buying and publishing women. A recent example was the woman who queried the same novel with the same letter under a female and male author's name - with startlingly different response and request rates. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's shocking.

https://jezebel.com/homme-de-plume-what-i-learned-sending-my-novel-out-und-1720637627

 

[The Big Peat]

Yes - the staff are. But at what levels. Plus, this is only a valid argument if those women are buying and publishing women. A recent example was the woman who queried the same novel with the same letter under a female and male author's name - with startlingly different response and request rates. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's shocking.

In her own words

 

[ratsy]

@DG Jones Have you read Francis/Julia Knight? Her Rojan Dizon series is great, and has that sharp witted Urban Fantasy feel to it, though more in a fantasy setting (very original setting, and I loved it) The MC is male though. The next series features a brother and sister duo, and is great too, but a little more 3 musketeers meets steampunk/magic stuff. All great stuff IMO.

 

[Parson]

Yes - the staff are. But at what levels. Plus, this is only a valid argument if those women are buying and publishing women. A recent example was the woman who queried the same novel with the same letter under a female and male author's name - with startlingly different response and request rates. I'll see if I can dig it up. It's shocking.

https://jezebel.com/homme-de-plume-what-i-learned-sending-my-novel-out-und-1720637627

Indeed great shocking stuff, but oh so frustrating. ---- I know a little about this on the age discrimination side. A pastor in my denomination had best be set to stay where he is located when he turns 50 because unless you are a "star" no one is really interested. On the female side even finding one church of any respectable size to look at a female lead pastor is very rare.