Jennifer Weiner: Are Female Novelists Ignored By 'New York Times' Reviewers?

Do book reviewers pay enough attention to female novelists?

Jennifer Weiner, a New York Times best-selling writer, doesn't think so, according to her recent blogpost.

It's not the first time she's spoken out about this issue. In 2010, she and fellow author Jodi Picoult voiced their irritation with The New York Times' glowing reviews of Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom." The chief concern? Franzen's work concerned itself with familial issues, much like books written by women that are deemed less serious genre fiction.

According to The New Republic, Picoult said:

"I think it’s a very old and deep-seated double standard that holds that when a man writes about family and feelings, it's literature with a capital L, but when a woman considers the same topics, it's romance, or a beach book—in short, it's something unworthy of a serious critic’s attention."

In an interview published on The Huffington Post last year, Weiner agreed:

"I don't write literary fiction - I write books that are entertaining, but are also, I hope, well-constructed and thoughtful and funny and have things to say about men and women and families and children and life in America today. Do I think I should be getting all of the attention that Jonathan "Genius" Franzen gets? Nope. Would I like to be taken at least as seriously as a Jonathan Tropper or a Nick Hornby? Absolutely."

There are numbers to back up their grievances. According to Slate's blog Double X, "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."

In spite of the clamor concerning the issue in 2010, the Times did not respond to the issue, and Jennifer Weiner has now announced on her blog that 2011's gender demographics from the newspaper's reviewers were just as dismal. After counting the number of men and women reviewed in The New York Times in 2011, she found that only 40 percent were female. Additionally, 10 men were given two reviews and a profile, while only one woman was (Téa Obreht, author of our first Book Club pick "The Tiger's Wife").

Weiner's conclusion?:

"...if you believe the Times could have swapped one of its multiple pieces on well-connected cross-dressing memoirist Jon-Jon Goulian for a write-up of National Book Award-winning Jesmyn Ward (who was eventually reviewed, once, months after SALVAGE THE BONES was published)… or if you believe that a book review that makes space for mysteries, thrillers and horror novels can also spare a few paragraphs each week for romance, commercial women’s fiction and quote-unquote chick lit, get on Twitter, get on your blog, post something on Facebook. Speak up."

But according to Salon, male novelists are the ones at a disadvantage, at least sales-wise:

"By a wide margin, women also belong more frequently to book clubs... The publishing industry has noticed this trend in reading habits, and knows that word of mouth can spread much more easily through a dozen gregarious club members than through a solitary, likely introverted reader. And so the mainstream publishing paradigm has shifted from books the highbrow critics are buzzing about to books that these clubs will embrace."

And even if men are favored in the literary fiction world, are reviewers really to blame? Salon reported that, when you look at the demographics of books that are published, reviewers are representing the field accurately. In a survey of imprints big and small, "women accounted for around 30 percent of the list, with small independent presses turning out to be even more male-heavy than a behemoth like Random House."

What do you think? Are women underrepresented in the book world?

Quick Poll

Are female writers underrepresented?

Yes

No

VOTE

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[Collage Kids]

04:20 AM on 03/20/2012

While it makes sense population-wise that half of the authors in the United States be women, what are the statistics on rejected authors? If sixty percent of authors are men, and forty percent women, then there would only be a bias if the number of quality works was equal, or favored women. On the other hand, I suppose you could make a case that the amount of money used for advertising could be a better indicator of bias. You would have to chart a budget-to-sales ratio to see if male authors were pushed by a stronger advertising campaign but received fewer dollars returned, or vice-versa. On the other hand, if something sells better without the advertising, then perhaps that is where the advertising is needed? I really don't know the answers to these questions, but I would be interested in seeing these facts before making a judgment. Also, seeing as how I've been weighing in on the "Chick-Lit" debate I suppose I should read Jennifer Weiner and see for myself if she is as good as a NY Times top pick?

[firstsuf]

12:26 AM on 01/27/2012

It does not get better through out the school years or college text book scene either, female perspective and authors are ignored altogether. It is like women do not exist, Sere (2001) called it "A history with no name," in how the refusal to acknowledge leaves no evidence to point to and is an integral mechanism used in denial of rights.

http://saidit.org/archives/mar01/article2.html

[Disketta]

11:41 AM on 01/23/2012

When you consider that most men don't read much, and the ones that do seldom read female authors, then it's not surprising that male editors favor reviews of books by men. It's a form of misogyny that some of the men involved don't even realize they espouse. They just don't notice women, don't pay us the same amount of attention as they pay to other men. Meanwhile, women buy most of the books. And you wonder why publishing is going down the tubes. Get the guys reading, get the women reviewed and published.

[caveman1313]

10:55 AM on 01/23/2012

of course they are. libs are some of the worst misogynists around. look at how they treated hillary during her 2008 campaign. look at how they treated bill clintons mistresses and victims

[WhatTheHolyHeck]

11:02 AM on 01/23/2012

I must have missed the role of politics in this story. Please do elucidate. This should be good.

[kelbell]

10:49 AM on 01/23/2012

I've read Weiner and Piccolt books. As a woman, I would totally categorize Weiner as chick lit....Piccolt has made me think about current issues and the law and family values in some of her books...but not all. I can't say it has anything to do with women vs. man...but I would roll my eyes if the NYT did a story on Nicolas Sparks or Weiner....same genre male or female....beach book to the max.

[Geshko]

10:16 AM on 01/23/2012

Just because 40% of books reviewed in the NY Times are written by females is not a bias. If 50% of all published fiction were women, there would be a bias favoring men.
However, since apparently only 30% of the books published are written by women, the Times is *actually* biased against male authors. Who knew!

[mattmarion]

10:57 AM on 01/23/2012

This is true but it's also meaningless.

For example, when is the last time you saw feminists argue that women are under-represented in garbage picker upper jobs? Probably never, or any other job like that. You will see constant topics on how women aren't as prominent in the top ranks but you never see anyone point out that PEOPLE are not prominent in the top ranks. There are thousands of people in the top ranks compared to hundreds of millions or billions of people below.

Thing is, if you don't take the whole picture into account, your point is moot and almost just a waste of time. If only 30% of publications are written by women and 40% of the book reviews were for women authors then guess what? As far as reviews, women have the upper hand since their small, 30% slice of the book writing cake gets almost half the reviews.

Lol, I'll most likely be branded sexist for these remarks, another part of the problem.

[becominglight]

10:08 PM on 01/26/2012

The question then begs - why are only 30% of published authors female - we consititue over half the population...

[Disketta]

11:42 AM on 01/23/2012

So, because publishers are also biased against women, then it's okay for newspapers to be biased?

[Geshko]

01:37 PM on 01/27/2012

Short answer: Yes. Its not the newspaper/reviewers job to further an equality agenda, they report facts/review books.
Long answer: Are the publishers biased? If only 30% of their submissions from female writers, the 30% figure is reasonable. But again, the publisher's job is not to further an equality agenda. The editor chooses books that will sell. A publishing house is not going to turn down a best-selling manuscript because of the gender of the author, nor should they publish something terrible simply to fill a quota.

[jojojo]

09:56 AM on 01/23/2012

Kind of like HP having a Women Page, but no Men Page.

[Veritas2005]

10:54 AM on 01/23/2012

It's because they would sensor all the comments anyway. In any event, the male view is the mainstream view, so to have a page for men would actually be pretty redundant and rather useless. Men largely, already have a platform to say whatever we want, so it's not really necessary to carve out a new platform. There are way better things to complain about such as fathers' rights in child custody cases.

[jojojo]

12:05 PM on 01/23/2012

"There are way better things to complain about such as fathers' rights in child custody cases. "

Yep, and those are exactly the kinds of issues that could be addressed on the non-existent men page.

Also, the underfunding of prostate cancer research ( PC strikes more often than breast cancer, kills nearly as many, yet receives less than 50% as much funding). etc, etc....endless issues.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[fsacb3]

09:30 AM on 01/23/2012

Interesting photo choice. Kind of drives home the point.

[zenju2]

09:29 AM on 01/23/2012

Why not? The NY Times is already biased against Israel...why not one more bias?

[StutterinFonzie]

09:28 AM on 01/23/2012

I'd say if the author wants to be taken as seriously as Nick Hornby then she is probably not worth reviewing in the New York Times

[Spartacle12]

09:16 AM on 01/23/2012

I do think in a sense Weiner is right. However, some of this is her own personal gripe for not having her work recognized. Unfortunately, Weiner is really weak at weaving in larger cultural themes and making any comment about the world. You just don't feel any take-away point of view in her work. Not one thing she's done is anything like "the Help" for example.

Toni Morrison has gotten plenty of kudos and reviews and she mines a lot of the same female territory -- she just also works on a whole other level that Weiner's never touched.

[Guardian Weasel]

09:10 AM on 01/23/2012

It's not hard to find both male and female authors represented in bookstores and the NYT. Which works are "taken seriously", of course, is far more difficult to quantify.

[MissIndependentLady]

09:11 AM on 01/23/2012

It's easy to make a sexist comment about women and say that you are a woman, but regardless of gender, you're still sexist.

[orthobobsuruncle]

08:21 AM on 01/22/2012

I think a man who writes a boring, mediocre book may have a better chance than a woman who writes a boring, mediocre book of getting it reviewed by a pal and making his reputation with it despite its mind-numbing narcissistic tediousness. So yeah, that's unfair. But I save my sympathy for people of both genders who write wonderful things that get completely ignored because they are too original or politically incorrect, or the authors aren't "sexy" enough.

[Fiona Helmsley]

09:08 PM on 01/21/2012

How Dirty Girls Get Clean:
An Anthology of Wicked Woman Writes, Art & Subversive Scholarship is available at http://theartsoldierouthouse.com/
This irreverent anthology of women’s work features a diverse collection of art soldiers including: Joan Jobe Smith, Tamara Madison, Puma Perl, Reverend Jen Miller, Hulga McSwine, Alice Carbone, Fiona Helmsley, Lydia Lunch, Jennifer Blowdryer, Ann Wood, Irrepressible Amy Wood, Rene Diedrich, Dominique Lowell, Alicia Adams, Jean Rhys, Iris Swartz, Joie Cook, Iris Berry, Lisa Cherry and many more. In sagas of debauchery and redemption, these women write what they are not supposed to with wit and relish. Adorned by intoxicating images, the short fiction, poetry, essays and rants within its pages are compelling evidence that an iconoclastic new movement in literature and feminism has emerged. The shrill, sexless screech of women’s studies departments will soon be silenced, that dead-white-dude-bashing dubiously disguised as scholarship will be dismissed and the feminist backlash will be realized by the voices of an independent woman who lives on her own terms. This is an important book with substance, fresh academic perceptions and insights long overdue. It is also sex, drugs, rock and roll. Impossible to ignore, much less put down, we dare you not to look between the covers

[Ariel Bonzai]

02:01 PM on 01/23/2012

Hey, u was just taklking about this F&F.