Man Booker Prize shortlist announced

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by beppe

I want to add two comments to this thread.
About literary prizes
in my country, that has a decent tradition and a normal level of fruition, there are several literary prizes. I make a point of honor not to read the books that are acclaimed, and to look with suspicion at the laureates. I got the impression that the prizes are in large part a PR/marketing operation, and in the remaining part maneuvers of territorial occupation by "political" sects. "political" is intended in the most unspecified sense. "sects" literary (a pun)

I wonder if in US, Commonwealth and Scandinavia these observations could be shared and in which measure. I tend to trust more those than the Latins, but somehow I am skeptical.

That's a good summary of how I view such awards in the UK.
I'd also include the Nobel Prize for Literature as one that often seems to have a 'political' subtext to it.

[HarryT]

The Man Booker prize is most certainly not "political" in any way whatsoever. It is an extremely reputable prize and, although one may not always agree with the choice of the judges, I don't think that many people would argue that the winner does not deserve to win.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If they only won an orange I would have no objection.

Or 30,000 GBP's worth of oranges.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Man Booker prize is most certainly not "political" in any way whatsoever.

According to
http://www.themanbookerprize.com/per.../articles/1017
In 1988 "Michael Foot was chair and was accused of backing Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses because Rushdie was a member of the Labour Party."

[HarryT]

An accusation, however, is not evidence of bias. I don't think many people would say that Mr. Rushdie did not deserve to be nominated; he is one of the leading Anglo-Indian writers around.

[Sparrow]

But why choose Michael Foot (a Labour politician) as chair?

[HarryT]

Mr. Foot was a prominent journalist and author as well as being a politician; I guess that he was chosen to chair the committee as a prominent public figure with a literary background. That's just speculation on my part, of course.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

According to
http://www.themanbookerprize.com/per.../articles/1017
In 1988 "Michael Foot was chair and was accused of backing Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses because Rushdie was a member of the Labour Party."

Whether Michael Foot backed Salman Rushdie because they were both members of the Labour Party or because he thought the Satanic Verses was the best book hardly matters since Peter Carey won the prize in 1988. Which tends to support Harry's assertion that the prize is not political, (though, of course, individual judges may be).

[EricLandes]

Originally Posted by TGS

Whether Michael Foot backed Salman Rushdie because they were both members of the Labour Party or because he thought the Satanic Verses was the best book hardly matters since Peter Carey won the prize in 1988. Which tends to support Harry's assertion that the prize is not political, (though, of course, individual judges may be).

And the fact that Rushdie's Midnight's Children not only won the Booker, but won the "Best of the Booker" at both the 25th and 40th anniversary votings gives him a pedigree to be considered.

Satanic Verses is probably his 2nd best book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EricLandes

And the fact that Rushdie's Midnight's Children not only won the Booker, but won the "Best of the Booker" at both the 25th and 40th anniversary votings gives him a pedigree to be considered.

Satanic Verses is probably his 2nd best book.

I agree. "Midnight's Children" is a superb book.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is there a source for the figures?
Perusing the fiction shelves of my local bookstore, I don't notice a gender discrepancy.

Casual appearances can be deceiving; did you glance and say "that looks about even," or did you count? There's a tendency to think that about 1/3 inclusion of a minority group is "equal," and an actual 50/50 balance is "minority taking over." (I can probably track down a source for this; the keywords are hard to search for & I don't have links in my bookmarks.)

Baen lists 213 authors, of whom approx. 56 are female. (I couldn't establish Terry England's sex, and Poppy Z Brite is ftm; not sure whether to categorize by current gender or at-time-of-publication gender.)

Female authors dominate a tiny handful of categories of genre fiction; they have a harder time getting published in nonfiction.

Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior
physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased.
Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research
and guest editorials in the journals studied.

(New England Journal of Medicine, July 2006)

The data show that at the elite law schools, the percentage of
women on the faculty averages 28%, very close to the national average
of 30%. Presumably, in a perfect market, the best scholars are at the best
law schools, and the best journals publish the best scholars. Given that
the percentage of female authors is 20.4%, there is at least the possibility
that gender bias.
...
In the one comment providing hard data from a “top tier” law
review, it was reported that 36% of submissions (in 2005)
were from women

Research paper at Brooklyn Law School, 2008

Women make up about one third of political scientists and are earning 42 percent of Ph.D.'s awarded in the discipline. But research presented Saturday at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association indicated that, in publishing, women lag far behind men.
...
...14 leading textbooks in American government. She found that they collectively had 31 male authors and 5 female authors.

Gender Gap in Publishing

it’s official: The New York Times really does review more fiction by men than by women. Far more. Over about two years, from June 29, 2008 to August 27, 2010, the Times reviewed 545 works of fiction—338, or 62 percent, were by men. During that period, 101 books got the “one-two punch” of a review in both the daily Times and the Sunday Book Review—72 of them were by men.

The READ: Franzen Fallout (Article posits that women may write more fiction than men, but includes genre fiction like romance in that assumption.)

I'm looking for statistics on non-academic publishing, and wow, they're hard to find. I may have to just start assembling a spreadsheet.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Casual appearances can be deceiving; did you glance and say "that looks about even," or did you count?

I didn't count - but it would hardly have been conclusive whatever the outcome.

That's why I wondered if there were any reliable figures to back up the claim about a gender imbalance, and what the extent of it is.

Virago Press doesn't seem to have any male authors on their list.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Mr. Foot was a prominent journalist and author as well as being a politician; I guess that he was chosen to chair the committee as a prominent public figure with a literary background. That's just speculation on my part, of course.

Foot was a journo and author, as you say - I'm just surprised they couldn't find anyone more suitable for the job (his literary background wasn't particularly notable).
Mary Wilson was also a judge one year.
Presumably because she was a published poet, and not the wife of another prominent Labour politician.
Nice work if you can get it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I didn't count - but it would hardly have been conclusive whatever the outcome.

That's why I wondered if there were any reliable figures to back up the claim about a gender imbalance, and what the extent of it is.

I'm looking for more solid statistics. Found plenty to support that academia publishes more by males, even when stats are adjusted for the gender imbalances in the fields; hard to find stats on mainstream fiction & nonfic.

Virago Press doesn't seem to have any male authors on their list.

Virago is the outstanding international publisher of women's literature. It is the largest women's imprint in the world

I've downloaded the list of Simon & Schuster authors and am going to start gender-sorting them. (Gaaah. 13,000 authors. Eeep.)

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Virago is the outstanding international publisher of women's literature. It is the largest women's imprint in the world

Female authors c.130
Male authors c.0

Is sexism ok as long as it is anti-male?