sheenaghpugh: (Critics)
[personal profile] sheenaghpugh
There's been a lot of debate recently in the literary world about whether women are under-represented in the field of reviewing, both in terms of reviewing books themselves and getting their work reviewed. And editor after editor, some of them female, have complained that "women don't put themselves forward". According to a writing friend of mine in a recent tweet, "she [editor] said "women don't contact her, but men send her lists of books they want to review, and why, and when".

This was all news to me, cos when I was reviewing, editors contacted reviewers, not the other way about. And I can't help feeling that though it may well make an editor's life easier to sit back and wait for reviewers to contact them, it's a bit of an abdication of responsibility. If I were an editor, and Joe Soap sent me a list of books he fancied reviewing, unless I knew him very well, alarm bells would ring; I would think, either these folk are his mates and he wants to puff them, or his enemies and he wants to shaft them, and neither is much use to the reader who just wants an unbiased opinion. I would also feel it was my job to decide what was reviewed and who reviewed it, and that he was being a trifle forward. If I liked his style, I would probably write back saying, none of these are available but you're welcome to review x, y and z if you like. If he refused that offer, I'd take it that I had been right about his having an agenda.

Editors are a kind of journalist, and as far as I know, journalists do not wait for news items to put themselves forward; they go out and look for them. If editors content themselves with those reviewers who put themselves forward (dear God, what an unBritish thing to do!) then we shall indeed hear from a narrow group of people. They may well be mainly male; they may also be disproportionately privately educated, because those schools, while in my view (and I'm speaking here as an ex-uni admissions tutor) offering no better an education than state schools, do tend to imbue their pupils with a self-confidence that sometimes amounts to an inflated sense of their own importance. If reviewers are mainly male, and choosing their own texts to review, then those texts too will be overwhelmingly male. I know this because more than one editor has noted a reluctance among male reviewers to assess women's writing - when I was reviewing for Poetry Review in the relatively happy days of Peter Forbes' editorship, I once asked him why he sent me so many women poets to review. He said he had to send women's books to women, because many of his male reviewers refused them. To his credit, he then sought out female reviewers who wouldn't say no; another editor, who was having trouble getting her regular reviewers to look at books from a certain part of the kingdom, simply jacked in the attempt. Me, I'd have concluded those reviewers came from too narrow an educational and geographical pool and that I needed to look elsewhere.

Editors have a hard and often thankless job, but I think it is part of that job to be proactive and independent. They, and no one else, should decide what is to be reviewed; if they go along with the suggestions of would-be reviewers they are opening the door to a great deal of intentional or unintentional nepotism, because many reviewers are also mentors of writing, and of course they think their own ex-pupils are the brightest and best; that's how teaching works. And there's nothing wrong with their promoting those whose talents they believe in as long as they do it in their own space; I use this blog to review and interview those I believe in and who might otherwise be overlooked. But part of what an editor is for is to counteract the influence of those with the loudest voices and widest connections and make sure quieter voices get heard as well.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 01:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highfantastical.livejournal.com
As a very new reviewer, I found this a fascinating post. Thus far, I seem mostly to have reviewed men's writing (in terms of actual reviews, that is - I've done some little articles on topics of my own choice which were all on women's writing, for some reason), and in fact have only covered one collection by a woman. My impression is that this isn't usual.

I am now wondering if I should be contacting editors more proactively. Hmm. :S

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 03:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sue guiney (from livejournal.com)
I must say, I was quite surprised as well to hear that reviewers were contacting editors to do reviews. I never would think to do that, and not because I'm a timid little woman (ahem) but because,as you say, it is the editor's job to choose what gets reviewed and by whom - not the other way around. I also must say that if an editor is not aware of the variety of work being done by women,or men for that matter, then he or she is not doing his job and needs to get out into the poetry world a bit more to experience how varied it really is. That goes for fiction, too. Thanks for this post, Sheenagh. (from Sue Guiney)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lilliburlero.livejournal.com
I think it's perhaps related to writers now having to do so much of their own publicity. When I started to become interested in poetry as a teenager in the mid-90s I got the distinct impression that only self-regarding amateurs solicited for readings -- now everyone's at it. I don't mind that development too much: self-promotion may not be decorous but the agenda is clear. I think critics soliciting for reviews is potentially more sinister, though a wander through a few internet fora and blogs will probably reveal allegiances and enmities. In my editorial capacity I'm happy for reviewers to approach me with suggestions -- but they don't get freedom of choice. On the other hand, since they're doing it for a copy of the book, I can't be too draconian if a reviewer really can't get on with a proffered text. That may pay a part too -- reviewing is very often done for a tiny or no fee -- which isn't perhaps conducive to professional objectivity.

Editors and reviewers

Date: 2011-10-27 12:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angestoique.livejournal.com
Very interesting, and I'm broadly with you, Sheenagh. The reviewers most likely to approach editors with a list of things they want to review are pushy people, the ones who shout the loudest, the most self-regarding.

I am a woman who has reviewed poetry collections by both men and women. I would deeply mistrust a man who consistently refused to review anything by a woman. (Or vice versa, but I think that's less common.) That is on a par with someone refusing to review a book by anyone who is black. I don't see why editors (or anyone else) should consider a gender-based refusal more acceptable than a race-based refusal, but they do.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-11-02 10:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] romyuloli.livejournal.com
Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-11-04 11:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eupheemiae.livejournal.com
ha, I will experiment my thought, your post bring me some good ideas, it’s truly amazing, thanks.

Profile

sheenaghpugh: (Default)
sheenaghpugh

December 2011

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
111213 14151617
181920212223 24
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 06:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios