BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Creation >

Women Authors

  
 
Tezcatlipoca
14:29 / 27.06.02
[rant]

Whilst speaking with one of my agents a few days ago, they mentioned various points of my current book which perhaps needed editing or redrafting before they would consider taking things further. Pretty much standard stuff. What surprised me was that during their reciting of the usual agent rhetoric ("it’s very good but…" "could you make it more like…" "blah, blah, we don’t read much but we do like books, really we do. blah, blah…") they suddenly threw in the comment that ‘It could be worse. You could be a woman’.

To his credit, as the discussion went on, said agent elaborated on this comment, and, by the end of the conversation, I could see what he’d meant to say, even if he hadn’t done it particularly tactfully. What it did do though, was get me thinking about the general attitude/prejudices of the publishing middlemen (viz. agents) towards authors based on something as irrelevant as gender. Even more horrifyingly, it made me realise not only how few books I own by women, but also how few I could actually bring to mind with little effort.

I’d like to think that my efforts in getting to the point where agents are interested in my work have been as difficult for me as for the next struggling author, since a level playing field makes any achievement seem all the more special, but, over the last few days I’ve found myself seriously reviewing the situation. Whilst I wouldn’t necessarily say it was easy to get as far as I have – largely as my basis for comparison is very limited – I have consistently found myself being treated both seriously and with respect by every agent and publisher I’ve spoken with (with the exception of one, who was unnecessarily nasty and whose pretty children I am having for dinner). In conversation with my partner, who consumes fiction at a terrifying rate of knots, her response was a frighteningly offhanded “of course women aren’t taken seriously in literature”. Of course. Silly me for thinking agents might actually judge work on the merits of style and content, rather than adhering to the formula of ‘woman + word processor = unmarketable tripe’.

I appreciate this doesn’t apply to all agents, of course, but what does annoy me is that this not only seems to be pretty much an attitude standard amongst agents, but that most of my friends – some of them female writers – are so goddamn blasé about it.
I’m also willing to assume that part of my irritation is purely selfish, inasmuch as considering that if women are sometimes rejected on the grounds of gender, perhaps my success in finding agents is only because I’m filling the vacuum that belongs to a more talented – female - writer.

But then what does my opinion matter? I’m just one man with multiple agents…

[/rant]
 
 
paw
21:06 / 27.06.02
If you're good enough i think you'll make the breakthrough anyway, gender bias or not.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
21:22 / 27.06.02
sean - if only!

i've long suspected that the standards for a male writer to get a short story published in the small press (in britain at any rate) are far, far lower than for a female writer. in fact, ask any female writer i know if this is the case and they'll piss themselves laughing at your naivete. what's the cliche here? oh yeah, we have to be twice as good to be considered half as worthy. or something like that. i've had a lot of stories published, but also been astounded by the poor quality of a lot of the (male written) fiction around.

goddamit, half the reason i began writing was because i was sick to death of reading about men, by men. i couldn't relate to it. i always have powerful female characters in my stories (good and bad) and they - and my 'real' name - stick out like a sore thumb in the magazines i'm in.

best of luck with the book, tez.
 
 
paw
22:48 / 27.06.02
yeah sfd, my instant generalisation post mode was functioning when i typed that. oops
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
16:10 / 28.06.02
Thanks, SFD. Incidently, are you still interested in taking a pre-publication peek at it?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
14:06 / 30.06.02
so why is it that female authors are seen as second best? as sean says, a good novel should be a good novel and perhaps once it's in print, that may be the case. it's getting into print that's the problem.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
21:10 / 30.06.02
But let's remember that we're talking about women not being taken seriously, and not the work they're producing.

Now - and here I'm really just testing the hypothetical waters - could it be, at least partially, a leftover attitude from the Victorian era?
To support this, I know for a fact that a number of books sold during the 1800s were marketted as being for women as they were 'not too taxing for the female brain', as it was generally accepted that females were incapable of the complex though patterns which came naturally to men. I personally find the unchallenged subscription to this attitude more disgusting than the concept itself, and that it almost certainly laid the groundwork for the way agents and publishers behave today is irritating at best and alarming at worst.
 
  
Add Your Reply