In Publishing, ‘You Are All Women.’ No, We Are Not

74 Comments

1. Barbara O'Neal on March 18, 2016 at 10:13 am

   It may well be that women dominate the industry. Why then are women authors still marginalized, shoved into chick lit corners with books about family dynamics, labeled “women’s fiction” and generally paid less, reviewed less, and taken less seriously? This is 100x more true for women of color.

   I don’t see that bringing more men in will make that better.

   
   
   
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 12:16 pm

     Hi, Barbara,

     These are incredibly good questions!

     Obviously, the “78-percent solution” isn’t working to prevent the marginalization of women authors that you see or the other effects of unequal pay, unequal review attention (this falls into the good work of VIDA, of course), and the question of who’s taken seriously. And I couldn’t agree more that the effects you mention are much more direly felt by women authors of color — as well as by those in “ethnic classifications” and many other elements of distinction.

     “Bringing more men in” is not my own interest as much as raising the male readership as a better-served and targeted audience base. And I doubt that more male representation in leadership in publishing would adjust, necessarily, the effects of women authors’ stance in the industry, as you list them here.

     I wonder if, in fact, it might not be worth asking someone like Charlotte Abbott or Catherine McCahill of PRH to comment on such things as the chicklit trap?

     Because if Lee and Low’s report is right (and it does reflect the UK reports, as well) that the trade is as heavily women as this, then these inequities for women authors are something that so many women in the business should be able to address, right?

     I think there’s every reason to call the points you’re making into stark question. Nothing you say here counters my own interest in better cultivation of a male readership.

     And I can stand with you, fully, in asking the hard questions you’re bringing to us here. Why don’t we pursue them with some women executives in publishing? Are you game?

     (And THANKS, as always, Barbara, your insights and reactions are inevitably sharp and thoughtful.)

     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
2. ProfeJMarie (Janet Rundquist) on March 18, 2016 at 10:42 am

   I’m trying to read this with balance, fairness, lack of bias. But I see this paragraph:
   I’m here to ask the women of publishing to do better than they’re doing. They have dominance in this industry, and therefore, they are the court of our appeal. I am glad to honor and promote their good work. And I want them to take on the problem of men and boys not reading. I see precious little interest in this problem so far. When you bring it up, you normally get…crickets. Why is that?

   And this line earlier: am not criticizing women or their capability or their rights or their superb achievements and endless hard work,

   … and I’m struggling to get behind it. Women have put in “endless hard work” and yet, it is still not enough.

   If Lee and Low had told us that 78 percent of publishing in the US was male? Gender-geddon: whole male-dominated publishing departments would be blown right off the sides of stately buildings in Manhattan.

   Yes, because it seems like *everywhere* males dominate in positions of power and it would be the continuing fight. To me, I see that women are finally experiencing in an industry what men have experienced for years, and magically, this is a problem.

   I can see that you are trying to attempt a view of “equal expectations”, but I’m not there, yet. Show me the statistics of what men are doing to help boys and men read more (I actually think you have something like this?). Show me what men are doing to help support them in their choice of reading – that it’s okay to read something by a female author.

   
   
   
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 12:35 pm

     Hi, Janet,

     Thanks for your input.

     I’m especially glad you’re asking what you are, because it tells me I may need to add one line to clarify something:

     I’m not saying that women being dominant in the industry “is a problem.” What I’m saying is that I’d like to see them use their position of strength to widen the consumer base/readership in reflection of the fact that men and boys aren’t reading as much as women and girls.

     And you’re completely correct that nothing I’m writing here lets men off the hook. There are some excellent efforts mounted by men about the need for guys to read more, by the way, since you ask.

     Here is one: https://www.guysread.com/ Guys read is a direct effort to try to get more men and boys interested in reading, and the organization has appeared at BookExpo America and other places in the past to speak to these concerns. (In fact last year or the year before, there was a panel on the problems of guys and reading at BEA, very helpful.

     I staged a panel on men and boys and reading at the International Digital Book Forum Conference, myself, last year, with the terrific author Peg Tyre (“The Trouble With Boys: A Surprising Report Card on Our Sons, Their Problems at School, and What Parents and Educators Must Do” https://amzn.to/1Rr53AH ) and Scholastic’s superb Francie Alexander addressing the issues. The panel was called “Readers Left Behind: The Gap Between Boys’ and Girls’ Reading.”

     I also let a session at Boston’s The Muse and the Marketplace conference for writers last year on men and boys’ reading and the fact that we’re not doing enough to cultivate it. (“We” — again, I agree with you entirely that this is the job of men as well as women.)

     I’ve done quite a bit of work, as well, with the UK author Jonathan Emmett — including programming him into the Author Day conference in November in London — who is a great advocate for more picture books for boys. Johathan — another man in publishing doing his best to raise these issues — has a special site and campaign called “Cool Not Cute,” to try to communicate what it is that boys need to be captivated as we want them to be at a young age by reading. Here is some information on his work in this regard: https://coolnotcute.blogspot.com/

     And I’ve been writing quite a bit about this (I’m a man working to try to impact this situation, as you suggest we need), for example here: https://tcat.tc/1DorzXE and here: https://tcat.tc/1DdFiOS

     So I’ve shown you something of “what men are doing to help support them (boys, men) in their choice of reading.”

     I’m not sure we have “statistics of what men are doing to help boys and men read more,” but I assure you that many men are concerned about this, and many more need to be. Today’s column is perfectly readable by guys as well as by women.

     I could not agree more that it’s okay to read something by a female author. Why not? Joan Didion is my favorite author. I read women as readily as I read men.

     And lastly, while I realize that it may not be pleasant to read me saying that women — who are dominant in publishing — need to do more to widen the readership, if men were dominant in the industry and girls and women weren’t reading as much as guys, would you not think it was appropriate to call on that male leadership to do something?

     Once again, thanks for your input, it’s appreciated and well-noted.

     All the best,
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
     • ProfeJMarie (Janet Rundquist) on March 18, 2016 at 1:48 pm

       Thank you for the links – I do follow Scieska’s Guys Read, but had not seen the Cool not Cute (although, there are so many issues with that, which might belong in another post about why boys can’t like books that are pink or that they must look like a Tonka truck to be “cool”, among other things).

       But if the issue is “how do we get boys/men to read more”, and “how can we get women involved with this”, then maybe we can drop the implication that women in publishing are not supporting men enough (“de-supporting” men – really?) All of your stats seem to indicate that women have all this power and they are now leaving men behind. Are you saying this directly? No, but how you’ve structured your argument in the post leads us down this path.

       To address, “if men were dominant in the industry and girls and women weren’t reading as much as guys, would you not think it was appropriate to call on that male leadership to do something?” – this kind of comment, to be honest, feels like reverse sexism. Women have power in the industry, but are they dominant? Vida reports would indicate no, I think.

       
       
       
     • Janna G. Noelle on March 18, 2016 at 1:59 pm

       …if men were dominant in the industry and girls and women weren’t reading as much as guys, would you not think it was appropriate to call on that male leadership to do something?

       The two situations are not equivalent. Men hold the balance of power and influence in society as a whole, not women, so we need to ask ourselves if women having gained dominance in this single industry is the cause of men reading less of a consequence of it. If the latter (and both Donald Maass’s comment and various on male vs. female reading seem to support this), calling upon women to cater more to men sounds like a case of demanding that the marginalized accommodate the oppressor, which will do little to shift the balance of power in society.

       
       
       
       • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 12:30 pm

         Hi, Janna,

         I’ve actually gone back and added an update to my article to try to clarify something I think may have been confusing in my original write. And I’ve gone over it with Keith Cronin in some comments below, as well. Let me see if I can lay it out quickly here, because, no, I’m neither asking for women to “cater more to men” nor for “the marginalized to accommodate the oppressor.”

         I’ll give it to you by the numbers to try to make it fast for us both:

         (1) Publishing desperately needs new readers. Digital has exponentially increased our output, I call it the Wall of Content.

         (2) How will we find new readers for our glutted marketplace if we don’t reach out to the half of the population that isn’t reading at anything near the rate that women and girls are?

         (3) It’s not women’s fault that men don’t read as much as women do.

         (4) The dominance of women in the publishing workforce may mean that the books business is not responding to the lag in male reading as aggressively as it could. Here’s a comparison: The UK industry is discussing whether entirely-female books divisions for children can produce material that will attract very young boys to reading. Could all-men departments get it right for girls? I doubt that, don’t you? That’s a good, healthy discussion, an important one.

         That’s what I’m talking about here. We need readers and because we have a big “reading rift” between men and women, the current dominance of one gender (could have been either) might mean that the response to guys not reading may not be as robust as it could be.

         If you can try to take the “blame” elements out of your thinking, it might help — I find this makes it easier for me to see that we’re looking at an economic fact (publishing is not growing its readership anywhere near fast enough) coupled at a gender-based reality (the gender less represented in publishing’s leadership is the one not reading as much).

         Does this help?
         Thanks much,
         -p.

         On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

         
         
         
3. Mathew Snyder on March 18, 2016 at 10:43 am

   This is fascinating. And fraught. I applaud the industry’s overall success with women both in the industry and among its readership.

   I don’t see this success as any kind of hand on the scale or grand movement to empower women, though I’m sure active efforts at diversity have helped.

   Rather, I see it as the plain effect of meeting demand. Or, at worst, failing to recognize male demand.

   Anecdotally, I’ve been saying for years that boys are not captivated by reading. They are captivated by the extraordinary draw of video games, and unsurprisingly that industry is fraught with gender imbalance and its own issues. (Yes, of course girls/women play them too, just as men also read books.)

   The industry can’t answer this leisure time drain only through some smash hit for boys, though it wouldn’t hurt. I have no idea how, but they really need to create demand among boys (and men) in much greater numbers.

   
   
   
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 12:41 pm

     Good comment, Mathew, thank you for it.

     I’m with you, I worry that the electronic entertainment media seem to be more seductive for many boys than girls (though I can’t prove this, it seems supported by so many studies of kids’ reading patterns and interests). And I think we need a focused, sophisticated understanding as to how to make an attempt at changing the imbalance of reading. This is something I think the industry needs to take on, and I appreciate your concern about it.

     You read me correctly in that I’m very glad to see such success for women in publishing and am happy to see more. I do, however, also feel — with that admiration undiminished — that we need to ask these successful women if there’s a way they can help us with the lagging readership on the male side. And to date, I’ve seen less concern about that in the trade than I’d like.

     As you say, it’s so fraught, isn’t it? Anything to do with gender disparity becomes emotionally fraught so quickly and I’m sure there are things I should have thought to say in my article to head off some genuine concerns. I’m so anxious not to hurt anyone or to say something cruel or discriminatory — no such nonsense is right here. This is a great thing for women! And our boys and men need help! Surely we can handle those two facts without them seeming in some way competitive to each other.

     Thank you again. And go hand a book to a guy. Tell him #guysdoread.
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
4. Paula Cappa on March 18, 2016 at 12:26 pm

   Oh my. I’m impressed, Porter, and appreciate the perspective here. The comments above are very insightful. Barbara’s points especially. But to add a thought to this subject of men/boys reading habits, I think if boys aren’t as avid readers as girls, might it be because they see mom reading books more than dad reads books? My children grew up seeing me be the dominant book reader in the family, while my husband read newspapers and current event magazines. I think gender identification and parents modeling behavior certainly have an effect. It seems that role models begin at home. Shouldn’t dads read more books if they want their sons to read more books?

   
   
   
   • Vijaya on March 18, 2016 at 12:32 pm

     A great observation Paula. We are a bookish family and for the first 10 yrs of our kids’ lives, there was no TV/video games. Even though we have a TV now, it rarely gets turned on except for a football game or a family movie night. It begins at home.

     
     
     
     • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 12:53 pm

       Hi, Vijaya, and yes, I agree.

       As just saying to Paula, several programs for guys’ reading have suggested that fathers need to read more where their kids see them doing it (instead of at the office or otherwise outside the house). Modeling that good behavior can only help.

       Thanks!
       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

       
       
       
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 12:51 pm

     Hey Paula! Thanks for the good comment.

     You’re hitting on something they know very well in England. There, there’s an actual movement to get fathers to read where their children see them do it. (Men tend to read at the office more than in the home, so boys and girls don’t get to seem them do it as much as — per your memories — they might see their mothers do it.)

     Here is one such program, Booktrust’s “Get Dads Reading” program https://bit.ly/1TFcicZ — great, isn’t it?

     Here’s one in the States: Fathers Reading Every Day or FRED: https://bit.ly/1pyIlRs

     Here’s another: Fathers Story Week from the Fatherhood Institute: https://bit.ly/1nULbP3

     Your point is absolutely right. Dads should read more books if they want their sons to read more, as well.

     And every time you hear someone say, “Oh guys don’t read,” ask the person saying it to stop. Every time a boy hears “Oh guys don’t read,” the next sound you hear is a book snapping shut. Boys can be so easily led to think that so much cupcake-making goes along with books that reading is not for them. My little hashtag for this is #GuysDoRead

     Pass the word, and thanks!
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
     • Zan Marie on March 18, 2016 at 2:49 pm

       I was blessed by a mother and a father who read copious amount of books in my presence. It makes a difference. All three of their children–two girls and a boy–read copious amounts to this day. The example of readers with their own interests is important. Keep the ideas coming!

       
       
       
       • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 3:11 pm

         Exactly, Zan,

         Couldn’t agree more. This is certainly one of the best messages to pass on.

         Many thanks,
         -p.

         On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

         
         
         
   • Diana Stevan on March 18, 2016 at 1:52 pm

     I agree, Paula. Boys model their fathers. Though our grandson’s father doesn’t read, our grandson does because his grandfather reads avidly.

     
     
     
     • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 3:10 pm

       Wonderful example of this modeling potential, Diana, thanks!
       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

       
       
       
5. Donald Maass on March 18, 2016 at 12:43 pm

   Porter-

   I’m glad to know that I am “96 percent normatively-abled” (whatever that means).

   In my 39 years in this industry I have not noticed a problem of availability of fiction for men. Nor have I noticed a problem of availability of fiction for women.

   Breaking with the usual, I’m going to disagree today with Barbara O’Neal. I do not see women novelists “shoved into chick lit corners” or marginalized with the “women’s fiction” label or generally paid less, reviewed less, and or taken less seriously.

   Nowadays women command strong positions in formerly male dominated arenas like mystery, thrillers, science fiction/fantasy, sagas, literary fiction…you name it. Their earnings are as high (and variable) as men’s. In fact, I know many a male author who would envy the unit sales of women’s fiction authors.

   I do not notice any dearth or bias in reviews of women novelists, and if one can cite instances of condescending criticism toward women writers, believe me, there are plenty of reviews of male authors that are unfair, snarky, biased and axe-grinding. Review bias is not primarily about gender, in my observation, although I’m sure at times it can be.

   Women authors may feel they are taken less seriously, but tell that to Marilynne Robinson, Donna Tartt, Edwidge Danticat, Louise Erdrich, Lorrie Moore, Zadie Smith, Amy Tan, and many other lauded authors. Not being taken seriously seems to me more an issue of genre, not gender.

   Where publishing falls down , ask me, is with respect to under-represented cultures. Why must we always see sympathetic “multi-cultural” characters, Muslim say, cropping up first in YA fiction? Fiction writers constantly research and portray characters unlike themselves, so why is their casting pool so limited?

   Getting back to gender differences, women have plenty to complain about in how they are portrayed by male authors. Then again, men could make the same complaint in reverse. Your typical romance hero is nothing like the good guys who drive their Subaru home to their families at the end of a long day at the insurance office.

   Do you really have to be a bombshell bimbo to be a woman in a thriller? Good question but so is this one: Do you have to be a hyper-sensitive hunk with a name like “Stone” and oddly colored eyes to be a romance man?

   Don’t pity men, Porter. They’re doing fine by publishing. So are women, as the stats show. Let’s focus instead on the cultural backgrounds that need more representation in our mass culture. How else are we going to make a more inclusive world if not with the seats at editorial board meetings and in the pages of our fiction?

   
   
   
   • Erin Bartels on March 18, 2016 at 2:37 pm

     “with a name like “Stone” and oddly colored eyes” HA!!! Yes, it would seem so. :D

     
     
     
     • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 12:31 pm

       I’m changing my name to Stone right now. My eyes are already oddly colored. Might be the lack of sleep. :)
       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

       
       
       
   • Bernadette Phipps-Lincke on March 18, 2016 at 3:05 pm

     I was going to comment, but you said it here, Don. Its not the male or female perspective that needs reevaluation. It’s the cultural, other than white and western. Thank you.

     
     
     
     • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 12:32 pm

       Read on, Bernadette. And it might help to have a look at an update I’ve added to the article — just before the Provocations in Publishing image.

       Thanks,
       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

       
       
       
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 8:25 pm

     Hey, Don,

     Thanks so much for all this.

     I’m in full agreement that issues based in “other diversities” (how’s that for a phrase — by which I mean multi-cultural, ethnic, religious, sexuality, and so on — are critically needy of address and have been for far too long.

     What I don’t think that does, however, is let us off the hook about men’s and boys’ reading patterns. After all, gender runs through every other “diversity” and forms, in my mind, a pervasive enough gulf (between men’s and women’s reading) that I feel it’s a crucial point not being taken very seriously…as perhaps your response suggests.

     I don’t “pity” men in this regard, either. There are many elements of this that men must take care of for themselves.

     While I’ve been misunderstood (or deliberately mischaracterized) in a couple of comments here, my intent is not to say that women are the cause of men’s not reading as well as women and girls do. My concern is that with women in the majority position in the industry workforce, I regret not seeing more concern from the business about the lagging reading rates among men and boys.

     While, as always, you know I support your taking your own positions, I’m actually a bit puzzled to find here that you don’t seem interested in what I think could be greater readership for your clients. I’m not happy to have women reading more than men, but not because they’re women (I want every one of them reading) but because I think people of both genders should be encouraged to read more than is happening.

     Is it really a bad stance to wish that more of our gender were readers? Men of color; men who are not as “normatively-abled” (isn’t that a grand phrase? It’s Lee and Low’s); men who are rich; men who are poor; what’s wrong with wishing that they all read with the dependability and interest that women do — and what’s wrong with asking the industry to consider doing something thing more than a big shrug about that?

     With nothing but respect, as always, I’m not convinced by your brush-by here.

     Nevertheless, I appreciate your input, as always, and hope you’re well.
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
     • Donald Maass on March 19, 2016 at 8:57 am

       Hey Porter-

       I didn’t hear anything after “more readers”. Why, um, yes! Good idea!

       Seriously, I did skip over that issue. Having both a son and daughter, I’m terribly aware of the gender difference with respect to reading.

       In our family the equation isn’t as simple as boy = math, girl = language. Still, the issue seems to me to be larger than just writing more stuff that boys like to read. There’s plenty of that on the shelves.

       The issue goes to socialization (the cues we give to boys and girls) as well as biology. In other words, it’s not just an issue for publishing, it’s an issue for parents and Nature.

       Let’s speak to Nature about that. And parents. And, sure, writers and publishers. There is ample evidence that girls, encouraged properly, are every bit as capable at math as boys. Likewise, boys can read just as well as girls…but are they rewarded for doing so?

       Sorry if I missed your main point. We can all do our part.

       
       
       
       • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 12:49 pm

         Totally, Don,

         And I’m right in step with you on everything you’re saying here.

         This one is complex enough (as was last month’s) that I’ve gone back and added an update to try to clarify a couple of things about “what I meant to say,” and no, I didn’t write it on Campari, lol.

         (As an aside, one of the interesting aspects of writing “provocations” here at Writer Unboxed is that sometimes what I meant to say is completely understood right off and no surprises — at other times, I find about 14 different interpretations going off in all directions and realize that whatever I wrote didn’t put across what I thought it would. It’s an interesting dynamic that’s one reason I try to be as engaged with the comments as possible.)

         Here’s the update I’ve added (two paragraphs), then I’ll circle back to one of your points:

         #####
         Update: In response to some of the comments below, I think it might be helpful for me to take special care to clarify something. Causal blame is not part of this article. I do not mean that we should blame the dominance of women in publishing for the fact that men and boys don’t read more than they do. What I do mean is that the dominance of women in the publishing workforce may mean that the books business is not responding to the lag in male reading as aggressively as it could. Here’s a comparison: The UK industry is discussing whether entirely-female books divisions for children can produce material that will attract very young boys to reading. Could all-men departments get it right for girls? I doubt that, don’t you? That’s a good, healthy discussion, an important one. And if you simply must find blame in things, blame men who are not applying for jobs in children’s divisions, considering kids’ books to be “women’s work.”

         Here is the point I’m actually making: Publishing desperately needs new readers. Digital has exponentially increased our output, I call it the Wall of Content. How will we find new readers for our glutted marketplace if we don’t reach out to the half of the population that isn’t reading at anything near the rate that women and girls are? That’s what I’m talking about. As children’s author Jonathan Emmett in the UK says, to be pro-boy is not to be anti-girl. Please try to think past the “blame” element. If you find it here, it’s all yours. I haven’t written it.
         ####

         And then back to your good point, this is what I like in what you’re saying:

         “The issue goes to socialization (the cues we give to boys and girls) as well as biology. In other words, it’s not just an issue for publishing, it’s an issue for parents and Nature.”

         In another comment, I was discussing the kind of homophobia that can lie behind some parents’ concerns that if boys read books about girls or with female protagonists, those boys will grow up gay. That reflects a profound misunderstanding, of course, of sexuality and of nature-vs.-nurturance and everything in between. But that has actually been so constraining in the UK market that there’s been a huge effort there to achieve “non-gendered” labeling so that products for kids, including books, won’t be so sharply delineated as “for girls” or “for boys” — an enlightened and sometimes impassioned, wrenching debate, well worth having.

         That’s the kind of thing I’d like to see around male reading. I know you feel that there’s plenty for guys to read, and I don’t dispute that. The question is are they reading it? Are they reading anything? I’m happy if they read about Stone the shirtless hunk. Just read.

         At a time when your clients and everyone else’s could surely use more sales, I’d love to see us look more seriously at the male-female “reading rift,” as I find myself calling it this weekend, lol, and ask ourselves if we’re looking at everything we might be able to do about it.

         If it’s not a matter of producing more for guys, that’s fine. Let’s look at socialization, then, as you suggest. Couldn’t agree more.

         But like most industries, I think publishing needs to take responsibility for the fact that its product requires a response from customers (reading) that we’re not getting as fully from one side of the population as the other, and wouldn’t it be a good thing to try to address that?

         Great of you to come back, thanks,
         -p.

         On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

         
         
         
     • ProfeJMarie (Janet Rundquist) on March 20, 2016 at 9:39 am

       “Is it really a bad stance to wish that more of our[male] gender were readers? ”

       Obviously not.

       It’s your framework, Porter. That is the issue because this is what you keep coming back to:

       “What I do mean is that the dominance of women in the publishing workforce may mean that the books business is not responding to the lag in male reading as aggressively as it could.”

       I’m not sure why it’s a surprise that I’m inferring blame – or at minimum an unequal appropriation of responsibility. If the true issue is looking at improving male readership, then take out the female-dominant role in publishing argument as the primary one.

       Give us the bigger picture – and include imbalance of females in publishing if you must, but as part of a much larger set of factors involved.

       
       
       
6. Jan O'Hara on March 18, 2016 at 1:10 pm

   Outside of educators, I’m not convinced men even see their disinterest in fiction as a problem in search of a solution.

   My city holds yearly, well-attended, multi-day seminars on literacy. A huge part of the time is spent on how to foster reading in boys. It is mostly attended by women. (A cursory glance would say attendees are 80% female. As an anecdotal note, I used to work with the reluctant readers in my son’s school and to a person, every one of the literacy volunteers was female.) According to the last seminar I attended, the research showed that male reading is enhanced when boys see *male* reading role models. If compelled to read a novel, boys should have access to ones written with a rapid pace, featuring male protagonists. By the middle of elementary school, they’re rejecting female protagonists while the same cannot be said of their girl counterparts.

   I know of career novelists who attempt to write directly to this demographic and at one point there were entire imprints whose focus was to serve the male reader. (Don’t know if that’s still the case.)

   Here’s my assessment of the situation: Men aren’t in publishing because it pays poorly, is an industry not valued by their peers (comparatively low status among other men), and because they abandon fiction by the droves in their teens. (They favor text which is seen as *useful* or educative, and don’t believe empathy and emotional work fit this bill.) In other words, by and large, men don’t want to be in publishing and don’t want to consume the products of publishing.

   But if I’m wrong–and it would be nice to think there is an under-served market, effectively doubling publishing’s reach and the ability of fiction to reach everyone–wouldn’t the independent author’s movement reveal the industry’s inherent bias? I mean, it’s already done away with the belief that there’s no market for fiction with protagonists between 18 and 23. Seems to me there’s a huge opportunity for writers who can speak to men’s needs. More power to them. And if/when they do, you can bet the publishing industry will follow.

   
   
   
   • Keith Cronin on March 18, 2016 at 2:05 pm

     “Outside of educators, I’m not convinced men even see their disinterest in fiction as a problem in search of a solution.”

     ^^^
     THIS.

     The idea that men not reading is somehow the fault of female publishing professionals is just not something I can take seriously, particularly given the incredibly uneven and unfair conditions women face in virtually every profession.

     Porter, there’s no universal rule that the market for every product needs to be equally split between male and female consumers. I’m guessing that the market for hockey sticks tends to skew male, and the market for yoga pants tends to skew female. For the latter I am quite thankful.

     
     
     
     • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 8:46 pm

       Ah, Keith, my fond disagreer.

       You’re so dependable in working just off to the side of what I’ve said, my friend.

       I didn’t say that women’s preponderance in the publishing workforce is the reason that men and boys don’t read more. I did not say that the lag in male reading is “somehow the fault of female publishing professionals.”

       What I am saying is that as the majority group in that publishing workforce by such a large margin, I wish that the good women of publishing seemed more concerned that members of the other gender aren’t reading as much. If things were reversed and 78% of our publishing workforce were male — and women and girls weren’t reading — I would want to see the same concern about that. I’d want to see that hypothetical guy-dominated books business mobilize to address the lag in women and girls reading. And I wouldn’t be saying that it was the fault of the dominant men in that hypothetical industry that the female side wasn’t reading as much, but I would be asking that male-dominated industry to work on the problem.

       Would you be an equal objector to my assertions in that situation?

       Nor, Keith, did I say that all products need to be “equally split between male and female consumers.” I think we call all agree that your hockey sticks are likelier to sell to guys than to women. And I hope you’re right that the yoga pants keep going primarily to the ladies, I’m in unstinting agreement with you on that one, and Lululemon has probably dispatched a hit man to my place already for saying so.

       Come on, Keith. Do I seem so easily reduced to such a simplistic misreading? Or is there actually something I need to edit in the article to be clearer?

       Or is it just that much fun to be the Porter Contrarian once a month? I’m not unhappy to be so frequently wrong whenever you’re in the comments room here. But I do wonder at how much thou dost protest, old boy. :)

       Not to worry, I’ll be wrong again a month from now — just for you, Keith. :)
       Cheers,

       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

       
       
       
       • Keith Cronin on March 19, 2016 at 9:59 am

         Porter, I’m not actually trying to be contrarian – I just view the issue VERY differently than you. I don’t see cause-and-effect here: I simply don’t believe the publishing industry has anything significant to do with whether men read.

         To me, it’s cultural. It’s educational (a few years back I ranted here at WU about how I hate the way American schools teach literature, and in the process turn many kids OFF from reading). It’s the presence of so many other distracting activities that often win out over reading.

         But I don’t blame publishing. They didn’t create the culture; they just sell to it. So it makes sense for them to know their customers.

         Besides, there’s certainly no shortage of “manly” books to read, is there? Not while my nemesis Clive keeps cranking out his cardboard-charactered thrillers, and Patterson puts out three books in the same time it takes me to post a comment on WU.

         Anyway, I’m glad we at least see eye-to-eye on the yoga pants thing. That’s a relief! :)

         
         
         
         • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 11:05 am

           Got it, Keith, and thanks for the comeback, that helps me understand what you’re saying.

           Here’s where I’d go next.

           I can get right into the Vespoli with you and row in sync on the fact that education is failing us in terms of training readers and that many other forces are causing a “rift in reading,” if you will — both in the practice for people overall and in the gap between female and male uptake. As I was saying, I don’t blame the leadership in publishing for CREATING the problem, no.

           But. Here’s where we might need to talk. Don’t most industries do things to widen (or try to) their customer base? Don’t video games makers try to introduce their new beeping, blinking distractions to new users and don’t cruise lines try to tempt people who normally fly to get on-deck instead and don’t the makers of Febreze try to get you to try their spray perfume to keep your furniture from smelling? (I love the name Febreze because it’s so feverishly close to “febrile,” I’m weird that way.)

           I’ve been writing a lot about the “Wall of Content,” as I call it. That’s the mounting ton of competition that faces writers. What has happened thanks to digital is that we have many, many, many more books being dumped into an already glutted market day after day and we’re not expanding the readership.

           Aren’t we, like the makers of Febreze, people who need more folks to try our products?

           And if so many of our existing customers (God bless them, every one) are women — I think Febreze loves them, too — then isn’t the logical territory for expansion the Great Male Plains of so far untapped guy-readers?

           I can’t think that now that you are in competition with everything since Gutenberg (thanks to digital, nothing goes out of print) that you, too, Keith — master that you are, yes, even you — are going to need some new readers. Because you are hemmed in on all sides by people writing books (all but three Americans, by my scientific surveys) and those Angry Birds who keep swooping down to carry off your readership.

           Long, febrile version condensed:
           (a) Reading needs new customers. Right now.
           (b) Half the population is way behind in being customers.
           (c) We don’t want to go after them? We’re satisfied with the sainted women reading us, thanks very much, we’ll just slowly die on the vine of commerce because we didn’t want any fresh water at our roots?

           See what I’m getting at? What do you think?
           -p.

           On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

           
           
           
           • Keith Cronin on March 19, 2016 at 12:47 pm

             While your demands seem reasonable enough, the reality is that you’re looking for the publishing industry to be both responsive and innovative – something at which they have historically failed miserably.

             Beyond that, I think the reason your post pushed so many buttons is that lingering behind the so-called “dominating” role you claim women have in publishing, there is still a pervasive anti-female sexism in this industry that most women – and myself – believe is a much bigger problem than the one you cite.

             Don’t think so? Then why do so many female authors use their first initials rather than their first names, to make male readers more likely to read their books? (JK Rowling, anyone?) Why do so few books by female authors get reviewed in major publications? Why is fiction written for women call “women’s fiction,” while books written for men are simply considered “fiction?” Why do no male-oriented literary categories get tagged with diminishing names like “chick lit?”

             Given all this, when you come out with a “you ladies should do a better job” stance, you’re going to butt heads with folks like me who think that before daring to cast that stone, we men need to do a LOT better job – and not just in publishing. Just sayin’.

             
             
             
             • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 1:01 pm

               No contest on the inequities that women face — and more in society at large than in publishing.

               I’d argue, for example, that if men won’t read a book with a woman’s name in the author slot, that’s stupidly bigoted, of course, but may not be publishing’s problem but society’s. And that said, it nowadays seems that very few male authors use their initials — the “JK’s” of the world are almost inevitably women. I regret Scholastic instructing Jo Rowling use “JK,” and I’d like to see her revert — as only someone as powerful in the industry as she is — to “Jo,” if she’d like. Nobody would stop reading her and it would create a great object lesson in the short-sighted bigotry of readers who won’t read something by a member of the other gender.

               In short, I don’t think we have any quarrel here in terms of what we want to see as a more equitable climate for women.

               AND I don’t see our agreement on that as meaning that the entire industry — which is more women than men — should pay more attention to the “reading rift” (my silly phrase of the weekend) between men and women.

               I do think that there would be more effort to widen the customer base if the lagging reading gender were women, simply because we have more great women in publishing than men.

               And in that regard, yes, I’d like to see the women of publishing do more about this question of guys not reading.

               I can’t get much closer to you on this than that, I’m afraid, Keith, but I do appreciate your being willing to hash it out (we are way into the skinny comments, lol) and I don’t for a minute disagree with you that the discrimination rampant in our society against women is revolting and wrong. It is a stupid oppression, as I have said many, many times in my writings, a stupid oppression of women by men. Nothing I’ve written here is meant to say otherwise.

               Thanks again,
               -p.

               On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

               
               
               
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 8:36 pm

     Hi, Jan,

     Thanks for the input.

     As I was saying to another commenter, there are indeed literacy organizations in the UK and the States working on male readership and one of the most frequent requests is that men read at home in the presence of their children. Dads tend to do most of their reading at the office and the kids don’t see them doing it as a normal activity at home. So yes, that’s an important element of trying to introduce an idea of value to reading for boys.

     Beyond that, while I think your assessment of the general shape of things may not be wrong, it also seems a bit more fatalistic than I think I’d like to be about it. The ideas of how guys march off to Nonfiction Land at a certain age and can’t be brought back from various patterns of behavior, I think is more accepting of standard tropes in this area than I like to be. Which doesn’t mean you’re wrong. Maybe just that you’re closer to that “men don’t read” shrug you hear women chant (and boys within earshot stop reading when they hear that for fear that reading is a girls’ thing). I’m worried about accepting “the norm” as unchangeable — you know me, lol — and I’m not ready to throw in that towel.

     What do you think? If it all were reversed, if men and boys were the big readers and men were the majority workforce people in publishing — 78% male and, say, 60%+ male readership — would you feel like accepting, “Oh, girls don’t read”?

     Not trying to be flip, seriously. I think my biggest challenge here is to understand why so many people seem content with this bad divide in reading between the genders.

     I do appreciate your input as always, of course, and hope you’re well.
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
7. Vijaya on March 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

   Porter, I enjoyed your article and I agree we need to serve our boys better. In the push to raise the standard of girls’ education and equality in pay, etc., we have somehow managed to squash a lot of good that’s in boys. I see a disturbing trend of feminizing boys. Note that most of our teachers tend to be female as well, so from early childhood the boy is given recognition for behaving like a good little girl. I’d say bring on the same-sex schools, esp. when kids are entering puberty, with women teaching girls and men teaching boys. I am a product of this type of education (Convent — and those nuns are a force to be reckoned with) and it’s far superior and a lot less distracting as well.

   The publishing industry only reflects the culture at large. And thankfully, we’ve not had any trouble finding great books that appeal to both boys and men.

   Last (but really the most important thing) we need to focus more on the family. Fix the family and a lot of problems that children have, disappear. The single-most detrimental thing that happened is the divorce. Now we have a couple of generations of people who’ve grown up without the strong and stabilizing presence of a father. I grew up in a fractured home and I can tell you, kids need their fathers.

   Hats off to all the fathers here. I’m praying for you.

   ps: I hope I don’t get rocks thrown at me for saying what I observe.

   
   
   
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 9:12 pm

     Hi, Vijaya,

     We shall duck those rocks together. :)

     I do appreciate everything you’re saying here. While I realize that some of it is based in your fine religious faith, which I don’t share, I nevertheless absolutely stand by you in your concern for the effects on — and OF — the family. (By that emphasis on “of,” I’m referring to the many things I see placed on young people today by families that usually meant well but simply weren’t prepared, weren’t trained, maybe just weren’t even intelligent enough to know how to raise kids well.)

     I agree with you that so much divorce in our culture has been quite, quite damaging to so many people.

     As an aside: I’ve got the oddest trend in my own anecdotal experience, too: I’ve found that my male friends who were the children of divorce have, to a guy, been the most faithful, thoughtful, sensitive friends I’ve known. Isn’t that a remarkable thing? I don’t mean to excuse ANYthing about divorce, but I’ve found that in men, in particular, having divorced parents seems to promote a deepening, quieter, more soulful personality that I’m afraid is born in pain, of course, but tends to render to us an adult who’s more patient and kind. Not at all what we might expect and perhaps part of my experience alone. As I say, I have no stats on this, lol. Just thought I’d mention it because it’s been so striking over and over to me. Kids of divorce value dependable relationship so much, I think, because they’ve seen the undependable kind very, very up close and badly personal.

     Back to your good points, I’m always fascinated to find the literacy efforts that ask fathers to read not just TO their children but in front of their children. Boys need to see dads sit down and “stare at a book,” as we say. Guys learn that way that reading is for them, not just for their sisters.

     And some of the comments here today make me think that I’ve been less than clear in what I meant to write (I’m considering a note or two in the article). But my intention wasn’t to say that guys’ lagging reading rates are the fault of a female-dominated industry. What I fear is that the lack of response/concern/alarm at guys’ lagging reading rates may be impacted by the fact that women are the majority gender in publishing. If things were reversed and 78% of publishing was men and girls and women weren’t reading, I believe that we’d be perfectly right in asking the men who dominated publishing to work on the problem. And I’m hoping that we can ask the good women of publishing to look at this situation more than I think they may be doing.

     Awfully good to have your input, as always. I’ll say a prayer (over a nice Campari, lol) for the dads either. Yesterday on a plane flight the screaming baby was in the arms not of a mom but of a dad traveling alone with the kid. That father was the most insanely calm, patient, gentle parent in that horrid situation (screaming baby on plane, oy vey), I cannot tell you.

     That guy gets my prayer tonight. And may that screaming kid grow up to be a great, great reader. :)

     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
   • Barry Knister on March 20, 2016 at 1:16 pm

     Vijaya–
     What an astute observation on your part. Divorce, cheap labor abroad that leads to both parents needing to work whether they want to or not, many new competing alternatives to books, etc.

     These and other forces have greatly altered the domestic context in which reading is or isn’t treated as a value. Remember the euphemism created by overworked parents who knew full well they were neglecting things like reading to their kids? It was “quality time.” No need to feel guilty about short-changing children, just “re-purpose” the reduced time you do give them by suggesting it has a richer quality about it. Uh huh.

     
     
     
8. Therese Walsh on March 18, 2016 at 1:36 pm

   ‘Why do boys read less’ is almost an age-old question at this point–and, for the record, I don’t think it has anything to do with the number of women in positions of power in publishing. I’d rather look to early education and biology. Biology first.

   This is interesting, circa 2008:

   Although researchers have long agreed that girls have superior language abilities than boys, until now no one has clearly provided a biological basis that may account for their differences.

   For the first time — and in unambiguous findings — researchers from Northwestern University and the University of Haifa show both that areas of the brain associated with language work harder in girls than in boys during language tasks, and that boys and girls rely on different parts of the brain when performing these tasks.

   “Our findings — which suggest that language processing is more sensory in boys and more abstract in girls — could have major implications for teaching children and even provide support for advocates of single sex classrooms,” said Douglas D. Burman, research associate in Northwestern’s Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders.

   Now some interesting research on education, circa 2013, out of the University of Missouri-Columbia:

   [E]ven in countries with high gender equality, sex differences in math and reading scores persisted in the 75 nations examined by a University of Missouri and University of Leeds study. Girls consistently scored higher in reading, while boys got higher scores in math, but these gaps are linked and vary with overall social and economic conditions of the nation. A better understanding of these gaps and how they are related could help educators design curricula to help students of both genders apply their talents and deal with their weaknesses.

   “Educational systems could be improved by acknowledging that, in general, boys and girls are different,” said David Geary, MU professor of psychological science. “For example, in trying to close the sex gap in math scores, the reading gap was left behind. Now, our study has found that the difference between girls’ and boys’ reading scores was three times larger than the sex difference in math scores. Girls’ higher scores in reading could lead to advantages in admissions to certain university programs, such as marketing, journalism or literature, and subsequently careers in those fields.

   And, here, a little hope, in terms of how early reading exposure can make a difference (by parents, with their kids; and likely with teachers, who are tuned into boy-reading issues). The results of this new study by the American Academy of Pediatrics will be presented next month. I’ll be interested to hear about gender outcomes then:

   Among the advice new parents receive is to read to their babies early and often. The hope is that sharing books together will help children’s language development and eventually, turn them into successful readers.
   Now there is evidence that reading to young children is in fact associated with differences in brain activity supporting early reading skills. The research will be presented Saturday, April 25 at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in San Diego.

   “We are excited to show, for the first time, that reading exposure during the critical stage of development prior to kindergarten seems to have a meaningful, measurable impact on how a child’s brain processes stories and may help predict reading success,” said study author John Hutton, MD, National Research Service Award Fellow, Division of General and Community Pediatrics, Reading and Literacy Discovery Center, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “Of particular importance are brain areas supporting mental imagery, helping the child ‘see the story’ beyond the pictures, affirming the invaluable role of imagination.”

   We need to read to our boys, early and often–maybe ‘oftener’ or at least ‘differenter’ than we read to our girls. It isn’t the only answer, but it’s an important part of the solution.

   
   
   
   • Diana Stevan on March 18, 2016 at 1:57 pm

     Yes, early and often. My daughter read constantly to her son, as I did as well. It helped him develop a love for the written word and books in general.

     
     
     
     • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 9:43 pm

       Exactly, Diane. Reading to kids develops their sensitivity to the world of words and language and nuance. It’s like teaching them to identify the stars at night, the sky suddenly begins to mean something to them.

       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

       
       
       
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 9:41 pm

     This is good stuff, Therese, thanks so much.

     I do think that the last study actually was presented last year — looks like April 25, 2015. And that means we should be able to find more of that study now. I’ll see if I can reach the Hutton team to get a full copy of what they have.

     I know I was heavily read to as a kid and I truly think that has a lot to do with what an infuriating provocateur I am now, LOL. Seriously, it has made all the difference in my life that I have a kind of sixth sense for language, and I think it’s my parents and grandparents I have to thank for that. Reading was such a big thing for me.

     Interestingly, I’ve just met a RICOH executive this week who spoke very movingly about his love of reading as a boy in a household too poor to have a TV. He was so attached to his books that taking them away was the only punishment his mom had at her disposal when she needed him to toe the line on something. It was fantastic to hear this.

     Thanks again, Therese!
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
     • Therese Walsh on March 19, 2016 at 11:58 am

       Wait! It’s 2016? ;-)

       Thanks, Porter; I’d be very interested in those study results if you lay hands on them.

       
       
       
   • Barry Knister on March 20, 2016 at 1:38 pm

     Therese–
     Today, my Sunday reading (after the paper) is reviewing this really special string following Porter Anderson’s post. Your own comment leads me to a conclusion: The problem behind getting more boys to read is to link reading to the future. I’m talking about marketing reading as fundamental to achieving pragmatic ends.

     Armed with solid research findings that link career success to reading skills, the book business would be able to appeal to all those parents who are trying to give their children a leg up in an evermore difficult work world. Do you want to give your son a competitive advantage? Read to him. Use every opportunity to reinforce in positive ways a child for his reading, and don’t forget: your children are very aware of what you do and how you use your discretionary time. It’s got nothing to do with something that’s “nice.” It has everything to do with critical thinking. You can’t teach higher-order cognition without reading.

     In other words, make reading a central piece in the developmental puzzle. Good parents take pains to make sure their children are well nourished. That’s the body. It should be a marketing commonplace in the book business that good parenting can’t neglect the role of reading. You sit at the kitchen table to help your children with math. But you’re not off the hook: you also have to curl up with them, and share a book.

     
     
     
9. Diana Stevan on March 18, 2016 at 2:07 pm

   What struck me as I read your post, Porter, were the differences between the sexes.

   Reading is not only educational and entertaining but also an escape, an exciting trip to the unknown. Men often escape in a different way. They gravitate to the visual – like playing video games and watching sports where they can release some of that testosterone. It’s natural for them, whereas women find their outlet in books, often in romances.

   My husband is a devoted reader but then again, he has both sides of his brain well developed, meaning both a masculine and feminine side. His father wasn’t a reader but his mother was.

   Thanks for the discussion.

   
   
   
   • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 18, 2016 at 9:55 pm

     Great commentary, Diane, thanks for it.

     One of my favorite books in this area is The Male Brain by Louann Brizendine https://amzn.to/1RUB1WG – the companion book to her The Female Brain https://amzn.to/1TVqa4R . I have both books, have read them, and can recommend them heartily, in case you’re interested.

     One of Brizendine’s most interesting findings, for me, is that women are far more invested in experiencing emotion than men are. This can be why a woman might be upset that a guy is not crying with her about something — while the guy is trying desperately to fix whatever is making the woman cry. The woman values the exploration of the emotion while the man wants to simply get out of the bad moment with a fix. Hence, the cover of The Male Brain is a brain covered in duct tape: men’s fixes. :)

     You’re right that these are fascinating differences and I don’t think we ever want to ignore or downgrade their importance.

     As I sense you do, though, I think we need to keep working if not to “beat biology” in some way, to find the keys to boys’ and men’s interest in linguistic exercise, in reading. At the very least, who wants to live in a world of dumb guys who don’t read? It’s such a joy to run into a man who can hold his own in a literary discussion, so many barriers between all of us as people — and particularly as men and women — seem to collapse when literature becomes the setting for our exchange. Wonderful.

     Thanks so much for your input here, Diane, many good notes from you among the comments, and much appreciated,
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     
     
     
10. Chris Eboch on March 18, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    The issue of getting boys to read more is a big one in children’s publishing. Most likely a lot of factors play into it, including those mentioned above: lack of male role models at home and among the teachers and librarians; women choosing the classroom books they like, which may not appeal as much to boys; a male preference for nonfiction over fiction; and the stereotype that boys won’t read books about girls – which might not be so true if adults didn’t encourage it. I’ve heard many stories of parents, librarians, etc. “warning” a boy that a book he’d chosen had a girl main character. I think a big issue for all young people is that the educational system today does not try to make reading or learning fun. Books are associated with tedious, dreary stories and term papers, while television and video games are associated with fun downtime. It’s amazing that anyone grows up to love reading.

    BoysRead is another organization geared for fostering a love of reading in boys: http://www.boysread.org/

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 11:27 am

      Hi, Chris,

      Excellent comments in terms of the children’s end of the spectrum. I’ve probably spent most of my #GuysDoRead time trying to explore that sector of all this, myself, having been introduced to it by the superb picture-book author (and father) Jonathan Emmett in England. His “Cool Not Cute!” campaign for more picture books that appeal to boys’ love of action and mechanics (and dinosaurs!) has been pivotal in the UK market’s slow but steady — and admirable — examination of what’s happening to its kids’ output when major houses’ children’s books staffs are entirely female. To their credit, some very fine people in those divisions are asking themselves if they really can hope to adequately develop the reading culture we need from only one hugely talented gender’s perspective. I have a lot of appreciation for Emmett, for the women AND men working on this — and for Emmett’s constant reminders that men are not stepping up enough and taking on roles in children’s literature. This is part of the problem. It’s not a matter of blaming it on women but of looking for a diversity so long overlooked and neglected in that part of the business.

      Everything you’re describing is fully valid. And, again, I feel like kicking the guys’ butts for many of these issues. Why aren’t more fathers able to walk into a bookshop or sit down online and choose books for their kids so, as you say, the mother’s perspectives aren’t the only ones going into book selection?

      And this thing of saying that boys won’t read about girls, in my experience, is truly not correct. I recall reading a strange (to me now) series of books called The Little Colonel when I was a kid growing up in South Carolina (in the 18th Century, you realize). I found them on Amazon: https://amzn.to/1Rr80rm My mother’s mother had them on the shelf in Walterboro, individual volumes, and I read every one of them one summer, completly captivated, probably about age 9 or 10. The Little Colonel is a girl. She’s growing up, as many white kids in the Deep South did in a certain era, surrounded by black servants. And she’s having adventures and learning hard lessons and developing her sense of respect for other people. It’s a great series of the era and I had not one moment of problem with the fact that she was a girl. AND I was reading the Hardy Boys series alongside those. All guy-stuff and being swell together.

      The idea that boys won’t read about girls, I believe, is driven by homophobia. There are parents of both genders who think that if their sons read “books for girls” they’ll grow up queer. Which is bullshit, but it has had a terrible impact on many kids’ reading, unfortunately (homophobia has a terrible impact on almost every aspect of life), and one of the most damaging effects is that boys grow up without the chance to understand better what girls’ sensibilities and culture might be like. This girl-vs.-boy thinking perpetuates the asinine animosity between the genders, inculcating it at a remarkably early age and making it incredibly hard to change in maturing personalities later.

      There’s been a major push in the UK (I’ve for years covered that market for The Bookseller in London) to stop gender labeling of products so that kids can be freed of this sort of thinking.

      As Emmett says, being pro-boy is not being pro-girl. We are cultures of duality. Sports have done this to us. We think there must be conflict. If you stand for one thing, you must stand against another. Rubbish.

      Wonderful that you know BoysRead, too, and thanks for reminding me of them. Probably time to do a story on them, actually, I’ll get in touch with them.

      Great of you to weigh in. In case of interest, here are a couple of things I’ve written on the topic from the younger sector issues: https://tcat.tc/1DorzXE and https://tcat.tc/1DdFiOS

      All the best, and thanks again,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
11. Erin Bartels on March 18, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    As far as the gender balance goes, if we travel back in time only a generation ago, I think the balance, especially of women in leadership positions, would be very different. Let’s not take a case of enormous female success (finally ) and immediately start thinking “we’ve gone too far” shall we? :)

    Now, I have exactly zero data to back up anything I’m about to say. All if it is based entirely on “the feeling I get,” so take it as you will. ;) But…

    I wonder, how much has male readership (percentage-wise) changed in the past 100 years? How much has female readership changed? The reason I ask this is because I find myself wondering if, beyond the scientific studies that show girls tend toward higher achievement in language skills, perhaps male readership as a percentage of the population hasn’t so much dropped as female readership has surged as authors have been pressured more and more to produce at a faster rate to feed the female reader who then demands more material to read, and on and on the cycle goes. Is that valid? I’m thinking most specifically about series fiction, romance, mysteries (especially with female sleuths), historical romance, bonnet fiction, etc.

    And that leads me to my next “feeling.” When we are children (in my day and anyone before me, this was the case at least—not sure about now) girls read more books with male protagonists than boys do with female protagonists. Just look at the reading lists in schools from the past fifty years. So girls grow up reading everything and boys grow up reading “male” stories, training them to be men who read “male” stories.

    I see this as my son is nearing age 8 and we are reading more and more chapter books. I want to read the Little House books and the Anne of Green Gables books to him because I know he’d like them if he gave them a try (not sure about the later Anne books, which are a little mushy even for me, but definitely the first). But there’s resistance on his part already. Those are girl books. Yet when I was in elementary school and junior high, I read EVERYTHING, whether the protagonist was girl or boy, human or animal.

    Having said all that, I work in publishing, and my company has tried and continues to try to grow our male readership with novels geared toward the male reader. It’s largely been unsuccessful, with a few notable exceptions. And because it’s a business and it has to make money, we focus on novels for the core fiction buyer (women in their 40s and 50s, largely) and are content to let the men buy nonfiction (which the women also buy). We often talk about the books “a wife buys for her husband” as well. Women are still the primary consumers in many households and the men aren’t out there browsing as much as women, so there are fewer ways to grab them in a more general way. Men are so often looking for a specific product for a specific purpose to solve a specific problem, while women are often just like, “Hmm, I feel like buying something for ME today.” :)

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 1:44 pm

      Wonderful comments here, Erin,

      Thanks for them, and especially for sharing some of the experience of you and your colleagues in trying to create material specifically for male readers.

      I truly don’t think we’ve cracked this problem yet by any means. I can’t vouch for the general understanding that women are more willing to read about men, but I do know that men don’t seem to enjoy reading books about (or “for”) women. Your 8-year-old son’s resistance, for example, I think is quite common. The male construct does seem to push away from the female in terms of fiction, and I get that. Curiously, in my own boyhood (I was telling another commenter this), I had no such problem. I read a series of books called The Little Colonel (she was a girl), hugely popular at the time, along with my Hardy Boys collection — I loved both and had none of this rejection compulsion against books with female protagonists or interests. Not sure how this was coming about, except that in my home there were no signals that manliness was connected to reading matter. Nevertheless I do see this in male readers today. (Overall, I think the culture today is far more sensitized to homophobia, which is powering a lot of effects of this kind.)

      The specificity of a guy’s search for a product is definitely a factor, too. I do find that I search quite decisively with a sharp understanding of what I’m interested in finding, even if I don’t know exactly what the book or other product will be when I see it. And I know that this is different from the approach many women take. (I have one female friend who jokes with me that I simply don’t have the “shopping gene” — I have no interest in browsing whatever. I go in, get what I want, and leave. No interest in staggering around looking at other stuff, lol. I’m sure I’m missing one of the great pleasures of modern life, lol.)

      Everything you’re saying is making sense to me as part of the mystery of what to do to engage a broader spectrum of male readership.

      I really admire your group at work for trying to address this. Admire it and appreciate it — and regret that some of the efforts so far haven’t panned out.

      I hope your team’s work on this won’t stop because it hasn’t borne fruit yet. If anything, I’d like to see if there might be some coverage to be done about what your team has tried and learned.

      I think the world of imaginative text can be just as attractive to guys as it is to women — after all, many men DO read and they read fiction and they read widely and they read willingly. I see them on every plane I’m on, I even see guys reading on the boats that pass by my window (I’m on a downtown waterway). They read for pleasure, they choose things they’re interested in, these are active reading lives under way. It’s doable. Pan Macmillan in London has a program(me) that relates new titles to other products – for example, there’s a male clothing line that carries books from Pan Mac, a great way to connect books to male readers who might not have been looking for them, an attempt to get around that male-shopping-specificity issue you’re putting your finger on.

      As an industry, I don’t think we’re understanding what makes it happen well yet, what seizes a guy’s interest. And while I’m less than thrilled to have been misunderstood by some WU readers here (this means that I didn’t get this thing written as clearly as I should have, I take responsibility for that), I do think we have to ask ourselves whether the gender balance inside the publishing industry right now is helping us work as hard on this as we might — in the overall industry, of course, with nothing but honor for exceptional cases like your own house trying to work on the problem (and thank you for doing that).

      “Fewer ways to grab [guys] in a general way.” That’s a good statement of the basic problem, I think. Well said. Maybe that’s where we need to look. It might not even be the reticence to read that we sometimes think is there but the sheer bombardment by other distractions and — without that shopping gene — “fewer ways to grab” the guys.

      Thanks, Erin, good to have your input, as ever.
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
12. Tom Combs on March 18, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Porter –
    As usual you have stimulated interesting exchange. Your comments provoke even when, as I sense in this case, you have no intent to do so.
    I believe I understand your main point and support it.
    Common sense supports efforts to increase male readership.

    Many industries introduce children to their “products” to enhance sales in the future. The long-range approach has proven to be effective.
    Forward-looking efforts to increase male readership is in everyone’s interests.
    More male readers means more book sales, more profitable publishing houses, more successful trad and independent authors, etc.
    More readers is good for business, good for the art, and fosters people’s happiness, knowledge, and well-being.
    Reading is non-polluting, low-calorie, intellectually stimulating, and causes no harm to animals.
    My three young grandsons love reading – it is a joy to see how they embrace it.
    I feel sorry for the large number of men who do not participate or appreciate the wonder of reading.
    They are missing so much…
    Thanks

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 1:14 pm

      Hi, Tom,

      Thanks for your good thoughts here.

      When I read some of the other comments here I think I wish I’d just written this from your reaction:

      “I feel sorry for the large number of men who do not participate or appreciate the wonder of reading.
      They are missing so much…”

      Hear, hear, and thanks for saying it better than I seem to have done. :)

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
13. Anna A on March 18, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    It is really hard for me to read this without getting bias but I can understand where you are coming from non the less. Good post.

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 1:48 pm

      Thanks, Anna,

      I can’t say that I put my points across as clearly as I thought I’d done. There’s enough “surrounding noise” in the comments on this article that I can tell I triggered some confusion. Good of you to pick up on it and lovely of you to drop a note.

      In case it’s of use, I’ve added an update based on some 24 hours of comments, to try to cut through a bit of that confusion. Might help as a clarifier, and thanks again!

      Update: In response to some of the comments…I think it might be helpful for me to take special care to clarify something. Causal blame is not part of this article. I do not mean that we should blame the dominance of women in publishing for the fact that men and boys don’t read more than they do. What I do mean is that the dominance of women in the publishing workforce may mean that the books business is not responding to the lag in male reading as aggressively as it could. Here’s a comparison: The UK industry is discussing whether entirely-female books divisions for children can produce material that will attract very young boys to reading. Could all-men departments get it right for girls? I doubt that, don’t you? That’s a good, healthy discussion, an important one. And if you simply must find blame in things, blame men who are not applying for jobs in children’s divisions, considering kids’ books to be “women’s work.”

      Here is the point I’m actually making: Publishing desperately needs new readers. Digital has exponentially increased our output, I call it the Wall of Content. How will we find new readers for our glutted marketplace if we don’t reach out to the half of the population that isn’t reading at anything near the rate that women and girls are? That’s what I’m talking about. As children’s author Jonathan Emmett in the UK says, to be pro-boy is not to be anti-girl. Please try to think past the “blame” element. If you find it here, it’s all yours. I haven’t written it.

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
14. Cathy Yardley on March 18, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    I think this is definitely a case of correlation does not imply causation.

    You say: “But diversity, ladies and gentlemen, is not about exchanging female dominance for male dominance. Diversity is about balance. And publishing does not have it.”

    But you then equate the disproportionate number of women in the publishing industry, to the statement that: “…the leadership of publishing is failing every one of us by not addressing the critical imbalance of female and male readership in the marketplace.”

    Keep in mind: this data is rough, because I’ve only been able to spend a few hours on it. (And yes, it kills me that I spent a few hours on this. But I hate discussing things without at least some statistics. Also, I only went through the Hachette catalog. It is only one of the “Big 5” but I feel it is representative, and it is across several imprints, including Little Brown, Grand Central, Orbit, and Redhook. If I had more time, and less work, I’d go through all the catalogs for HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, and Simon & Schuster as well. If anyone else would like to research, please let me know!)

    Going through the Hachette catalogs, for adult fiction, I discovered that the titles and authors were almost a perfect 50/50 split, male and female. When I looked at the novels’ protagonists, there were 23 that showcased both male and female POVs, 41 male POV, and 38 female POV characters. This is across a spectrum of genres, although you could obviously tell where there were imbalances — the exclusivity of female authors in romance, for example, as opposed to the heavier male author presence in sci-fi.

    What we’re seeing is actually a fairly even representation of male and female main characters. We’re even seeing a fairly even representation of men and women authors.

    I’m failing to see the cause for concern. I don’t feel that male characters are being underrepresented or made secondary. Men who might not read female authors are also not being deprived.

    But what of the boys’ who need to be encouraged to read? What about the lack of developing male readership?

    I went through Little Brown for Young Readers’ Spring/Summer 2016 catalog. There were 12 books with both male and female main characters, 53 books with female protagonists, and 36 books with male protagonists.

    Granted, there’s a disparity there: about 60/40 split among the primarily-single-gender books. Still, not something I’d consider epidemic. I also was unable to find historic catalogs for Little Brown from, say, 10 years ago, to see if it’s a trend that female protagonists are “taking over.” However, I will say that the main reason for this disparity happens in YA, where the authors and protagonists become almost exclusively female… and romance tends to feature more intently in the storylines.

    In adult fiction, romance as a genre is similarly dominated. I think that perhaps a study genre-by-genre might be more illustrative. That said, I also sincerely doubt that the romance industry would be better served by seeking out and cultivating the male reading population that is currently being under-served and avoided.

    Perhaps men aren’t reading as much because they aren’t getting exposed to books with male protagonists and male authors?

    Let’s look at reviews. Even though the publishing industry is predominantly female, there is the marked imbalance in how many female authors are reviewed, in the New York Times, in the London Review of Books, etc. (In 2011, 437 male writers were reviewed compared to 217 women. That’s closer to a 70/30 split.)

    So perhaps that’s not it.

    I’m not even going to touch the racial, sexual orientation, or able-ist issues, since your argument doesn’t address it… although if anyone has cause for feeling neglected and for being unfairly represented and ignored, it would be any one of those groups.

    In summary, I fail to connect your theory that predominantly female publishing professionals are in some way responsible for the dearth of male readers, or that “female domination” has replaced male domination. And I will say that the idea that the fact that women are “in power” has resulted in this appalling situation, and that THEY must somehow address it beyond what the industry is already doing, without any sort of data to back it up, is irresponsible at best and just unbelievably obtuse at worse.

    As the quote goes, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” Perhaps drawing this conclusion, or at least connecting these two issues, should not have happened.

    
    
    
    • Keith Cronin on March 18, 2016 at 7:25 pm

      Marry me, Cathy.

      Admittedly, there may be some logistical obstacles with my ESO (Extremely Significant Other), but I’m sure that when she reads your post, she’ll come around. And of course you’ll need to handle any relationship-oriented hurdles on your side. :)

      Seriously, you’ve hit the nail on the head. VERY well said.

      
      
      
    • Lorin O. on March 20, 2016 at 6:17 pm

      You said everything I wanted to say as well, Cathy, so well done!

      I would only add that in addition to the benefit of both parents modeling reading for their children, it’s helpful if parents, guardians, teachers, etc., modeled equal interest in and empathy toward both genders (and folks on the scale between and around those genders). It would help if a lot of little boys weren’t socialized out of loving princesses and girl heroes, etc. and it would help if people in the industry, including Don, who is obviously a good friend and compatriot, didn’t deride traditionally female audience-centered genres like romance as being trite and hackneyed when there are plenty of dumb tropes in every other genre. AKA, thriller villains have just as many dumb names as romance heroes, with jagged scars and brutal jaw lines to match the unique eye colors of their romance counterparts.

      If you want more boy fiction readers, then I think it starts with allowing boys to fully participate in, and appreciate, the concerns of their gender and the opposite gender.

      We might try to princess girls up a lot, but we sure don’t care if they want to put on pants and read Harry Potter or Diary of a Wimpy Kid or Percy Jackson, etc. But it’s considered pretty enlightened parenting to let a boy read Sparkle Pony Princess books.

      I would also add that with the exception of one-dimensional shooter games, a lot of video games feature pretty deep storytelling, with incredible world building and character development, explorations of protagonist motives, etc.

      So, in addition to possibly preferring nonfiction/educative materials, it may be that boys also just prefer their narratives in a different form, in a medium that also welcomes and needs writers.

      
      
      
15. Barry Knister on March 18, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    Porter–
    No regular reader of WU would question your courage, but if there were any such, you’ve silenced them today. You prove how crucial tact is when dealing with a topic that puts me in mind of suicide bombers.

    In our own backyard at Writer Unboxed, men are certainly well represented, but most of the writing and heavy lifting is done by women. It would be interesting to have statistics related to this. Whatever they might reveal, everyone at WU is working hard to serve the interests of all who visit–male, female, and the expanding universe of those who are conflicted.

    Women have always bought and read more books than men, especially works of fiction (it can be argued that the novel was actually developed in the eighteenth century for women).

    That’s one reason why I made the central character in my suspense series a young woman. I wasn’t interested in writing more testosterone-driven thrillers like my first published novel, and I thought women readers were more likely to enjoy what I now wanted to write. (As it turned out, I arrived at this conclusion without knowing that, in our time, ninety percent of readers of both sexes read only books written by writers of their own gender.)

    But here’s something your excellent post doesn’t touch on: the true interface in commercial publishing for both writers and publishers is agents. I know from personal experience that the field is heavily dominated by women, as you say is true of most editorial jobs. When the two women agents who represented my work sent me lists of editors to whom my manuscripts had been sent, one man figured out of sixteen.

    I would be interested to learn what if anything you think this means in relation to the questions you’ve raised.

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 2:11 pm

      Boy, Barry, an interesting comment!

      For all your kind words about courage (I do thank you), I’m afraid that this provocation effort was not as clearly written as I needed it to be — to such a degree that I’ve gone back and added an update in an attempt to clarify what I was saying. It’s a lot more about how-will-we-expand-the-readership than about women-are-messing-up, but I fear that whenever we get near issues of gender relations, the results are always blurred by emotional response and I should have been ahead of that better than I was.

      Still, here’s a part of what I’ve put into that update, because I think it has some bearing on the example of your agents-and-editors experience. From the update:

      The UK industry is discussing whether entirely-female books divisions for children can produce material that will attract very young boys to reading. Could all-men departments get it right for girls? I doubt that, don’t you? That’s a good, healthy discussion, an important one. And if you simply must find blame in things, blame men who are not applying for jobs in children’s divisions, considering kids’ books to be “women’s work.”

      To my (mildly bruised) mind, that relates to what you’re recalling — your two female agents sending your manuscript to 15 female editors and one male.

      Not knowing the details of the submission, nor of the agents and editors involved, I’d say that on the face of it, it sounds like you need to factor in whether your particular manuscript needed the response of male editors who weren’t contacted or even of male agents who weren’t handling you as a client. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with noting that some material is simply more accessible to one gender than another — and by extension, there may well be cases in which one or the other gender might do a better job of representing specific content.

      What I think we can say is that we can’t afford to let gender prominence (on either side) limit our efforts to find and cultivate a wider readership. And right now — at this point in history — we have a lot fewer readers on the male side than on the female. I’d like to feel surer that we’re responding to that factor as robustly as possible.

      However well or not I may say it, I think this is an authentic and worthwhile thing to question in our publishing life today, and I really appreciate your willingness to step up and look at it from your own experience.

      -p.
      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
16. Jenny Bhatt on March 19, 2016 at 3:03 am

    Cathy Yardley’s comment pretty much sums up what I wanted to say as well. I don’t like such discussions without some statistical evidence to back up assertions, opinions, and conclusions.

    Back in 2013, I had done a brief survey of the last 10 years of Booker and Pulitzer winners to see how many of them had won awards, which featured male protagonists, and which were written by women vs men. I focused on the literary genre because that of the journal I was writing for (https://storyacious.com/2013/08/09/marginalia-recent-fall-of-female-protagonist-in-literary-fiction/).

    I ended up titling my piece “The Fall of the Female Protagonist in Fiction” because that’s what the numbers proved. From 2000-2013, the Pulitzer and Booker Prizes for fiction were awarded to 26 books – the Pulitzer did not award in 2012 and the Booker 2013 is TBA. Of these 26 awards, only 7 had female protagonists. 2 out of these 7 had both male and female protagonists. And, 5 out of these 7 books were authored by women, including the 2 that had both male and female protagonists. Of the rest of the 19 books with male protagonists, only 5 were created by women authors. My point is that there are plenty of male authors writing fiction with male protagonists and winning awards/reviews/attention for it. So, regardless of the gender makeup of the publishing industry, male readers have plenty to choose from if they are not inclined to read “books about girls”.

    And, though the intent of my article was not to address how that contributed or not to the gender reading gap, it is safe to say that, despite the large number of male protagonists in some of the best-written fiction (also written mostly by male authors), we have grown men not wanting to read.

    So, I’m glad that Mr Anderson added the update at the end of this article to clarify that he does not mean to suggest there is a correlation between a high number of women in the publishing industry and why boys/men do not read as much as girls/women. And, for me, given the above survey I did, I believe these women in publishing are also doing everything they can to give male authors and male protagonist-driven fiction more than a fair shot to shine.

    
    
    
17. Anneka Freeman on March 19, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    First off: I’m not a regular reader of this blog, but I will be from now on, thanks to this article, so… I think you win no matter what I say.

    I’m a writer for children and young adults, so this is a question that we talk about all the time. All the time. My friend sent this to me and it’s been eating away at me ever since. I hope you won’t mind if I add my two cents to this remarkably well-informed comments section. As an aside, the friend who sent this to me does not fall into that 90 whatever percent. She has Rheumatoid Arthritis, among other things. So when she asked me what I thought of this article, I explained my feelings on the issue thusly:

    Asking women in the publishing industry to brainstorm creative solutions for this is like asking my friend’s joints to take a look at that pesky arthritis problem she has. Her joints aren’t the problem; the problem is the immune system, which is attacking her joints. The problem doesn’t always lie where the symptoms are. So: boys aren’t reading. But the root problem isn’t within publishing (which I think is a point your commenters have gotten around to, a bit.)

    The problem, as I see it, comes down to empathy. At some point, this culture (Western, largely white, largely English speaking) decided that empathy and emotion was For Girls. Boys are barely allowed to feel their own feelings, so how can they be expected to understand someone else’s?

    (As another aside, I hope you’ll forgive me if I say that the article above is an example of this. Boys Do, and Girls Feel, which often leads to girls being shown as powerless and boys being told that they should jump in and start working on a solution before they even know what the problem is. Which brings us to this admittedly wonderful article, which is full of a call to action at the top without much of an effort to delve into the source of the problem at the bottom. Shouldn’t we ask what these boys are feeling when they put down a book before we turn to women and ask them what they’re going to do about it?)

    And so we come to reading: an act of empathy in its purest form. We put on the skin of a character; crawl into their thoughts and feelings and wear their personalities like clothing. This is empathy. We feel what the character feels. Is it any wonder that boys — the same boys being encouraged to ‘man up’ and ‘don’t be a p***y’ — turn their backs on reading? What did we expect would happen?

    So let me ask this: do we really think that boys’ brains are so stunted that they can’t read or understand words written by a girl, about a girl? No more than a woman needs a special, girls-only pen to write them (I’m looking at you, Bic). English words don’t have gender. And we won’t fix boys’ empathy problem by asking women to write “for boys.” In fact we’re likely making it worse, because how are we told to write for boys? We cut out the empathy and put in more violence, more action, less thought. That won’t make children want to read: it will make them want to see the movie.

    If you ask me, the best thing that women in publishing can do is keep publishing material targeted at women and just stop telling boys they can’t read it. If you ask me. Which, to be fair, no one has.

    TLDR: You said:

    “If men and boys, by comparison, aren’t reading as women and girls are, do we share an obligation to address that? Or is it just fine with you?”

    I say: No to both.

    I elaborate: No it isn’t fine with me, but we aren’t the best people to address that. The catch 22 in my argument is this: reading builds empathy like nothing else. So if not us, then who? Teachers, parents, librarians. That’s it, that’s the answer. The gatekeepers are the ones who lock boys out at an early age.

    In sum: This isn’t a problem we in publishing can solve. I’m not passing the buck, but we can’t ask joints to solve arthritis. Let’s talk to the immune system.

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 2:33 pm

      Thank you, Anneka,

      Yours is my favorite of so many fine comments here. Welcome to Writer Unboxed (we regular contributors each write once per month and my specific role is as the industry-issues provocateur).

      I appreciate your reasoning very much. It’s relevant, sensible, and — best of all — full of empathy, in itself, for the complex set of emotions put into action when we start questioning the wider context in which publishing engages, or doesn’t, whole swaths of the population.

      I’m aware, too, of how much louder a conversation this is in children’s literature, of course. While I’m very keen to know more about why adult men aren’t more easily led to reading, I understand, of course, the focus on young readers and it’s certainly preferable to catch them young and lead them to the best work if we can.

      As you might have seen, I included in my update in the article a bit about the terrific debate in the UK about picture books, in particular, and concerns that all-women children’s divisions just may not be able to produce picture books both for boys and girls with equal aplomb, a rightful and worthy conversation.

      And in reading your good response here, I feel as if I’ve watched as your JetSki pulls up beside mine.

      Here we are at your summation: “Teachers, parents, librarians. That’s it, that’s the answer. The gatekeepers are the ones who lock boys out at an early age…Let’s talk to the immune system.”

      Okay, then. Isn’t it the job of publishing, in that case, to “talk to the immune system?” When do we, as a business, get into the faces of the gatekeepers and start grappling with this?

      Are we doing that? I’m asking earnestly. I don’t doubt that this might be the mechanism needed.

      As we pull up to what I think is the same point on the issue — and if we agree that we have gatekeepers locking out the boys (however unintentionally we have to hope that occurs) — then isn’t it the problem, the duty of publishing to do what you’re suggesting: talking to the immune system, talking to the gatekeepers. We’re the empathy masters (I love your conceptualization of reading on this plain, beautiful). So aren’t we the ones to walk our empathy down the street to the school, the library, and the parents to have a few words with them?

      I just can’t exonerate the industry that needs this missing audience. Isn’t it our job to “talk to the immune system”?

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
      • Anneka Freeman on March 19, 2016 at 3:56 pm

        Again, I think no, though we heavy caveats. And this comes firmly from my background of writing for young people, so be aware that I’m looking through that lens. But I think it’s a valid lens, because I think that the problem starts when they’re young.

        It’s so tempting, and so nice to think that publishing could push back, and have an influence, the way that you seem to think it can. And you probably have more experience in this area, maybe you’re right to think that it can.

        But I am not convinced.

        Readers are, in my opinion, not people to be talked down to or dictated to — I don’t think any good writer thinks that. The reader is my boss; the reader decides whether or not to buy my book, and in so doing decides my salary.

        As a writer for young people, gatekeepers are also my boss. I have two bosses, and I think we know how much that sucks. The gatekeepers mean well; they just want what’s best for the children, but they’re also largely responsible for perpetuating the system we have today, which is the root cause of boys not picking up books.

        Can we, in publishing, push back? Probably, but at what cost? I don’t know, but I bet there are some people in marketing who could give you a figure, and I bet it isn’t a small figure. The readers and the gatekeepers are our bosses. We could stop the needless gendering of books, but it would probably hurt sales. We could pander to boys more, but I think that’s demeaning and patronizing for everyone involved. We as publishers could tell people what to read to their children, but I don’t think parents respond well to that.

        Paradigm shifts like the one I think we need come from the bottom up. And there are a lot of good projects here, posted in the comments. The best of them have nothing to do with publishers.

        If you ask me, publishers aren’t built for this fight. Too big, and too small at the same time. They don’t have enough influence and they move too slowly. Does that mean that we’ve lost? Not at all! Does this mean that we shouldn’t push back? No, of course not. In fact, I think we already are, in a way.

        This is a problem that will right itself in time, and it will take time, and you can’t force that. It needs to come from the bottom up, not the top down. This blossoming of literature by and about women is good. We need more of that. We should foster that, and invite men to read it. Publishers aren’t effective at doing that. Do you know who is?

        Men.

        Aren’t you glad that the power is in your hands? Pick a harlequin romance, really commit to reading it, and recommend it to your guy friends if you can. Pick more books about women and by women, and make your male friends read them. Read to your son, not just adventure stories, but princess books too. Let him cry about it.

        That’s going to work much better than anything the publishing industry can do.

        
        
        
        • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 20, 2016 at 12:08 pm

          Hi again, Anneka.

          Thanks for your extended input.

          I’ve learned in years of our fine discussions here at Writer Unboxed that we don’t change each other’s minds — and we have no need to “win” our points. Our best benefit from this fertile commentary is to exchange views, to at least hear and be able to consider other viewpoints, convincing or not, in a very civil and collegial way made possible by Therese Walsh and her associates who guide things.

          Your tone and spirit are appreciated.

          Where I think we differ is in our opinions of how much the industry should or can do about its own consumer base, its readers. Certainly I haven’t suggested here that we talk down to anyone. And I’ve already acknowledged your good point about teachers, librarians, and parents as “gatekeepers,” as you designate them, in terms of what flies in children’s literature and what doesn’t.

          Your underlying assumption is correct that I am interested in a far greater range of reader than the children’s market. In fact, I’m more concerned about mature male readers. They’re the ones who finally seem to move past reading in so many cases, once past the educational setting (however ineffectual it may be) has tried to introduce them to it. This is not to say that your focus on children’s isn’t perfectly correct, important, and valid. It’s just to say that I am, as you surmise, I think, looking at a larger issue.

          And lastly, I will disagree that an industry has no role to play in who its customers are. I see an auto industry continually working in its approach to the drivers of the world to raise awareness of safety issues, technological advances, economic shifts. I see the medical industry work to educate its patients, the services sector racing to develop better consumer-facing orientation (or be outdone in a heartbeat by Amazon), and even the fashion industry learning to shift with remarkable speed now to the very difficult extremes of the Boomer generation on one end and the millennial market on the other.

          It is correct that an industry consciously evaluate and determine how to approach its consumers’ demographics. It is correct that we consider whether publishing is responding to the needs of readers of color, to the rising appetite for work in translation, to the forces of discretionary income in the YA sector, and, yes, to the level of service — I did say service — we offer our readers of both genders. This is good business and not something for us to shrug and walk past.

          No need for you to feel compelled to pick it up as your own campaign, of course. And, again, your input is welcome and appreciated.

          But the issue is not moot. And simply saying that it’s men’s problem is clearly not the answer or we’d have more male readers. When we need new readers for the industry — and we do — and when men are out there not reading — and they are — it’s our problem.

          That’s (obviously) my own take on this, and I’ve appreciated our exchange on it.

          And I thank you once more,
          -p.

          On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

          
          
          
    • Barry Knister on March 19, 2016 at 3:47 pm

      Anneka–
      I share Porter Anderson’s admiration for your comment. Perhaps, though, it’s time to stop talking about boys and girls as though they were interchangeable parts that got modified on the basis of gender after they were born. It’s politically correct, but not convincing.

      Of course nature is modified by nurture, but I think it’s a mistake to pin the rap on Western civilization, or on “the gatekeepers” who “lock boys out at an early age.”

      Excepting, that is, parents. How much poorer the odds must be of boys or girls becoming readers in homes where parents don’t read themselves, and don’t bother reading to their children.

      As for your statement that “reading builds empathy like nothing else,” that is music to any writer’s ears–but is it true? Have you ever shown a child of either sex how to take responsibility for a cat or dog, or how to appreciate the suffering others?

      Steven Pinker’s research suggests that about fifty percent of what we all are and become is pretty much predetermined. If he’s right, that means there are real limits to what books can do. And it doesn’t matter who’s calling the shots in publishing.

      
      
      
      • Anneka Freeman on March 19, 2016 at 9:20 pm

        I continue to be deeply impressed with the quality of the commenters here. Barry, I think that you are coming from different places to the same conclusion: that this isn’t an issue that leaders in publishing can “fix.”

        I must disagree with your statements about nature vs. nurture, but this is based largely on my personal experiences, but my experience is a data point of one, not valuable to science.

        As for “reading builds empathy” I have good news — this one I can back up with science facts!

        According to Christopher Bergland from Psychology Today: “Neuroscientists mapping the brain have discovered that reading fiction taps into the same brain networks as real life experience. When you are engaged in reading a fictional story your brain is literally living vicariously through the characters at a neurobiological level.”

        Link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201412/can-reading-fictional-story-make-you-more-empathetic
        More articles here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/novel-finding-reading-literary-fiction-improves-empathy/ (I’m less crazy about this one, but it supports the point)
        And here’s one specifically about teaching empathy to children: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/may/13/reading-teach-children-empathy

        
        
        
        • Barry Knister on March 20, 2016 at 3:01 pm

          Anneka–
          Thank you for the links. I never seriously doubted the role that reading plays in developing empathy, but felt like playing devil’s advocate. I’m big on pets.

          Assuming the research is accurate, the way should now be clear. As I said elsewhere above, getting boys to read should now be viewed by the book business as a marketing problem. In the same way nutritionists are used by the food industry to convince parents that their children can’t succeed without the right diet, book marketers must now enlist cognitive scientists to show those same parents how reading is the brain food needed for higher-order cognition.

          If they want their kids to be competitive in an ever more difficult work world, their children will need to know how to “read” others. That requires empathy, and a developed capacity for critical thinking. In other words, the book business must tie the idea of responsible parenting to treating reading as a key value in child development. Not as “enrichment,” but as central.

          Responsible parents help their children with math. It’s arguably even more important for parents, early on, to instill in children a gender-neutral sense of reading as fundamentally important.

          
          
          
    • Vijaya on March 19, 2016 at 3:55 pm

      Anneka, fellow children’s writer here :) I loved your response and analogy.

      Porter, thanks for the update. But it’s clear that publishing is not necessarily the problem. Children’s lit. is full of mostly women and some men who create wonderful books for both boys and girls. The solution lies at home.

      
      
      
18. Nancy Johnson on March 19, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    As a woman and a reader of literature, I am troubled that books by and about women are rarely reviewed by The New York Times or awarded the Pulitzer and National Book Awards.

    What troubles me even more is that as an African-American writer, I see very little diversity in the publishing industry. I’m writing my debut novel now and I worry about whether publishers and agents will view my book as marketable. Will it be relegated to the African-American fiction section or have a place of prominence in general fiction, too?

    We need more people of color at the table in publishing houses and literary agencies. Everyone should embrace diversity in stories. We have hopes, dreams, struggles and joys like any other protagonist and our stories are worth telling and reading. Diversity in publishing should be everyone’s goal, not just a burden carried by a few.

    Thanks for discussion and insightful blog.

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 19, 2016 at 10:25 pm

      Hi, Nancy,

      I really appreciate your comment here, it’s apt and articulate. I think you do, indeed, have reason for concern. The industry is only now starting to work seriously on its lack of racial diversity — interestingly, it’s as sharply drawn as its lack of gender diversity, as Lee and Low’s research indicates.

      What we must hope is that when it’s time for your manuscript to be considered, there will be enough awareness of these limitations that it can receive a welcoming look. In too many cases, as you’re referencing here, the business’ categorizations are so restrictive — purely by their traditional hold on the minds of our publishing people — that books by people of color are relegated to racially defined classifications and shelves. One of the tragedies of this, of course, is that such books never have a chance to be found by the wider audience: we never know if they might have been salable and meaningful far beyond such pigeon holes.

      I wish I could tell you that at this point I thought that diversity is, as you rightly say, “everyone’s goal, not just a burden carried by a few.” Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re there yet. I think we can be and will be. But publishing moves with remarkable slowness into its future — something we’ve learned as we watched it struggle with the digital dynamic’s impact.

      What will be increasingly important is that writers speak clearly and as constructively as possible about their experiences. As much pressure as the books business has experienced in recent years — from economic forces, from the competition of digital entertainment, and from a sometimes overly hostile self-publishing community — the industry is going to have to experience even more pressure before it takes genuine action to diversify its product mix.

      The thoughtful and unemotional tone of your comment gives me hope that voices like yours will be prominent. If the independent writing movement has taught us anything, it’s that rude, angry accusation produces nothing but defensiveness in this industry’s search for its way forward.

      So while it’s a lot to ask, I know, whenever you can, hang on to the grace you show us in this good comment. It honors you and your work and your completely correct appeal.

      Thanks again,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
19. Georgia on March 21, 2016 at 11:27 am

    Oh, the dangers of the dominated emulating the dominant! (If they want part of our pie, it had better be EXACTLY HALF OF IT or it’s a NO GO!)
    For all we know, the root of this issue could be less a matter of women’s domination in the publishing industry, and more an indication of their submissiveness. Does anybody remember that article about how more women are graduating from college not because they’re more motivated and destined to make fabulous salaries that reflect this amazing scholastic aptitude (cough, cough, choke, die) but because they’re more obedient? Deeepressing. Perhaps more girls read than boys because they feel their voices aren’t being heard in the real world, and they turn to books as an escape. Perhaps they don’t feel comfortable transgressing, and can only so do so through make-believe. Perhaps boys are too busy creating their own stories to sit down and consume others’ stories. Perhaps boys are simply still told more often to go outside and run around, while girls are still told to sit inside and be quiet. One lends itself to books, the other does not.
    In any case, I think the reason why boys aren’t reading as much has more to do with boys and how we raise them than it does with women in the publishing industry.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/education-gender-gap-girls-schools-university

    
    
    
20. Barbara Morrison on March 22, 2016 at 9:28 am

    What an interesting discussion!

    I agree with those commenters who have maintained that publishers will be among the least effective at getting men to read more, though Barry makes an interesting point in his suggestions and comparison to other marketing drives.

    I also agree with Porter that there is nothing wrong with asking the publishing industry to examine ways that they can get men to read more (adults, since the children’s publishing industry seems already heavily involved in this discussion). If they can raise the number of men reading fiction by even 1%, that is a win for all of us.

    Most of all I appreciate the measured, respectful tone of all the comments, both original and replies.

    Thanks, Porter for initiating this discussion.

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 24, 2016 at 11:15 pm

      Barbara,

      You’re a natural peacemaker, and I appreciate that with this column more than with most.

      Thanks for the measure of your own intelligent commentary, it’s a credit to the discussion and we could have used you over the weekend. :)

      Warm regards,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      
      
      
21. T.K. Marnell on March 22, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    The lack of reading options for boys is an important topic, so I was cool with this article…until you added this comment.

    And if you simply must find blame in things, blame men who are not applying for jobs in children’s divisions, considering kids’ books to be “women’s work.”

    The reason men don’t enter the publishing industry in general, and kidlit in particular, is not because they’re all chauvinist pigs who sneer at it as “women’s work.” It’s because they’re not interested.

    Just like social pressure discourages young girls from enjoying “tomboy” activities like contact sports and video games, peers and parents discourage boys from enjoying “nerdy” things like reading. And boys have little to read if they want books with male protagonists, but they don’t like SF/F or MG gross-out comedies. So they don’t get into reading, and they don’t grow into men who major in the humanities.

    Also, people judge women by how thin and pretty they are, and they judge men by how strong and rich they are. Humanities don’t pay. Men go into business and engineering, where the money is. If being a children’s book editor paid as much as being a computer programmer, I think the gender disparity would disappear in a flash.

    
    
    
    • Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) on March 24, 2016 at 11:12 pm

      Hi, TK.

      I have little quarrel with what you’re saying here. It’s clear that some men would rather get into higher-paying career tracks than they can find in publishing. Still, I wish things were different, and that men did find the interest that — you’re right — a lot of them don’t find in publishing, and especially in children’s publishing.

      I don’t think one has to be a “chauvinist pig” — do we really still use this phrase? — to see something as “women’s work.” Long tradition gave us this skewed view of many parts of the work landscape, and I’m impressed when I see men buck the trend and “cross over” to roles that for so long in our society have been considered “women’s work,” just as I love seeing women expand the range of roles in which we find them working today. Such characterizations as “women’s work” aren’t always seething sexism in either direction. Sometimes they’re simply part of the structures and forms we each grew up with. Expectations are part of any view of any society at any age and for any gender. And yet we’re so impatient with each other on these things.

      Does this mean we don’t need to grow beyond them? Hell, no. And I would argue, in fact, that in 2016, we have a remarkably sensitized society that’s growing and moving and getting better at spotting our old idiocies and correcting them. Not for nothing did Ray Moore, the director of Larry Ellison’s Indian Wells tennis tournament, have to step down after saying such baffling things about women’s tennis (the WTA) vs. men’s (the ATP) last weekend. He revealed that he has no idea of the value of the amazing women athletes all around him. I’m glad he’s out.

      But at the same time, the experience of writing this piece and dealing with some of the reactions to it has shown me a response pattern among some (of both genders) who feel an over-weaning sense of entitlement and who operate on ham-handed agendas that make them see enemies where there are none.

      Some people would rather be angry than honest.

      Each of us must choose with whom we’ll spend our time and how we deploy our efforts. And I’m not satisfied that knee-jerk misinterpretations of what someone writes ro says deserve our respect any more than the original discrimination does.

      All the best.
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson