cheriepriest

posts about #cheriepriest more →
"Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List
Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
Steampunk Zombies of the Seattle Apocalypse

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

ParryLost
11/13/09

In reply to "Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List
"We ignored gender..." So, were they completely unaware of the gender of the writers of all the books they considered?

Or are they gender-blind, like Stephen Colbert?

If neither of these things is true, has anyone considered the possibility of an unconscious bias? (You know, the whole reason we need controls and double-blind studies in science to prevent scientists who want to "ignore gender" or whatever other factors from messing up their own results unconsciously?) Didn't a single person involved in making that list ever take PSY100?

What percentage of the people making this totally unbiased list were female? If it was a pretty low percentage, couldn't that have contributed to an unconscious bias? If that percentage was reversed, and a mostly-female group was tasked with choosing the ten best books without considering gender, would they have perhaps chosen some written by women, without consciously thinking about it?
Reply

Edited by ParryLost at 11/13/09 10:08 AM ParryLost was starred ParryLost was unstarred

queensowntalia
11/13/09

@ParryLost: If everything in the universe has to be analyzed to that degree, why bother doing anything at all? I got a headache just thinking about it. I mean, sure, unconcious stuff drives us all. But if we sat around analyzing everything we do at any given moment to death, we'd spend a lot of time sitting around staring at walls. #books
Reply

ParryLost promoted this comment queensowntalia was starred queensowntalia was unstarred

ParryLost
11/13/09

@queensowntalia: I don't understand your point. So are you saying we should be okay with sexism, with influential people who show obvious biases and then claim to be 100% unbiased, and with a lot of other bad stuff, just because it's tiresome to analyse things instead? O_o I sincerely don't know what you're trying to say: That we should be okay with every bad thing that happens in the world, because if we try to actually think about the world's problems, we'll just end up staring at walls?

What I talked about isn't some minor insignificant effect: It is a fact, proven by (properly designed) psychology experiments, that yes, unconscious biases about gender do affect the way a woman's work is evaluated versus that of a man. And obviously this is important in the real world: You can talk all you want about how these top-ten lists don't mean anything, but it should be obvious that if the world of publishing is filled with people who judge women's writing unfairly -- while claiming to be 100% unbiased, no less, and thus prone to dismissing any criticism -- this is likely to lead to, you know, some problems for women writers as a group. So... why isn't this worth analysing, exactly? #books
Reply

ParryLost was starred ParryLost was unstarred

queensowntalia
11/13/09

@ParryLost: I'm saying why not give them the benefit of the doubt rather than assume they're sexist? I mean, what would you have them do? Set aside their own preferences to make SURE they include women writers specifically so people don't offer that criticism? How can you KNOW they're being sexist? Why should it be obvious the world of publishing is filled with such people? Its convenient to assume so, but how can you prove it? Your proof is, oh, say, this list? its not simply that they happen to like those writers, its instant sexism just because on this particular list they dont have any women?

I'm saying that overanalyzing is bad and leads only to one of two things 1) either hyper sensitivity to the point where the quality of the story becomes totally irrelevant as long as you meet the gender quotas or 2)
an end to any such endeavour at all, because its simply not worth the headache.

Sorry if I'm a little vehement. The subject pissed me off to no end when it came up in a tor.com post some time ago. Uber-PCism to the point where the subject matter itself becomes totally irrelevant really really bothers me. #books
Reply

queensowntalia was starred queensowntalia was unstarred

anomaly_kid
11/13/09

In reply to "Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List
Who frakkin' cares?! It shouldn't matter whether the author is male or female or black or white or yellow or green! What matters is that the books are worthy to be called the best. I'm so frakkin' sick and tired of all this politically correct BS. It's worthless and helps no one. Actually, it helps those that might be undeserving because it gives them an unfair advantage. Rather than the best reigning supreme, it's, "Who we feel we should pick so that everyone feels included."

ARGH! I HATE IDIOTS! #books
Reply

ParryLost promoted this comment anomaly_kid was starred anomaly_kid was unstarred

ParryLost
11/13/09

@anomaly_kid: I'm so frakkin' tired of people who dismiss every complaint about real-world sexism as "politically correct BS". Newsflash: You do not live in an egalitarian utopia. Even people who say they ignore gender probably don't really ignore gender, at least not on a subconscious level. The world would not be a level playing field if we did away with all of what you call "politically correct BS", because history and culture are already biased towards males. There are a lot of good books out there, including many written by women. The fact that you trust a group of people who claim they are capable of fully ignoring gender to choose which books are "worthy to be called the best," and believe that if they didn't think a single book written by a female qualifies, then this must be the objective truth, shows that you really shouldn't be one to call other people idiots. #books
Reply

ParryLost was starred ParryLost was unstarred

anomaly_kid
11/13/09

@ParryLost: You're an idiot. I don't "trust" any group that chooses books. But that you think they chose books solely because they were written by men makes you the shortsighted one in this instance. You need to get a clue. They chose the books because they were good books. You really believe they thought, "Throw out the ones written by women. We don't want to consider those ones. Because there's noooo way a woman could EVER write a decent sci-fi book."

I have nothing against women. I have nothing against men or blacks or even people from the middle east. Just because they were born under different circumstances than a white man doesn't mean they should obtain special privileges. Perhaps, oh, I don't know, white men have so much more because they actually work to obtain it. I state the truth of the matter, but I'm sure you'd only call me a sexist/racist. Whatever. Pretend you live in a world where we can all be equal. We don't. We never will. If you want to be taken seriously, if you want to have all that others have then you need to work for it. You need to prove yourself by your actions. You don't get something just because you are who you are. Minorities are always sided with, the preferred choice for job offers, etc. Because why? Everyone's so afraid of being the racist one. It's ridiculous. And who ends up suffering because of it? I do. Even if I'm more qualified, even if I'm ten times better, I still won't get to pass them by because idiot society dictates that those who don't have as much get to have more given to them. Yes, those who don't try to do it all get to have it all. THAT makes sense. I guess that's why Obama's president now though, eh? #books
Reply

anomaly_kid was starred anomaly_kid was unstarred

LolaInSlacks
11/13/09

@anomaly_kid: Honestly this is just insulting to every woman or member of a minority that's had to work twice as hard to get half as far as a white guy. #books
Reply

LolaInSlacks was starred LolaInSlacks was unstarred

queensowntalia
11/13/09

In reply to "Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List
There is just no way to post this sort of thing without sending everyone into a tizzy. Feelings run VERY strong on matters like "best of" lists.
Which are really quite subjective. I'd argue the practice of such lists should be abandoned, but let's face it, they're fun. Not a bad way to seek out new stuff to read, either.

I think people just need to accept everyone's definition of "best of" differs. Don't have a cow because your favorite of favoritest was excluded - heck, make your own list. :) #books
Reply

Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment queensowntalia was starred queensowntalia was unstarred

goldfarb
11/13/09

In reply to "Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List
"We wanted the list to reflect what we thought were the top 10 books of the year with no other consideration....We ignored gender and genre and who had the buzz."

so let me get this straight...the group of people picked what they thought were the best 10 books of the year - without basing those choices on anything but the quality of the books...and people are bitching about it?
isn't this what we WANT?!?!
don't we all want things like gender, genre, race, etc etc to not matter?!?!?

Hypocrisy, you're dong it right! #books
Reply

goldfarb was starred goldfarb was unstarred

J_Frank_Parnell
11/13/09

@goldfarb: I agree. Unfortunately people inherently see bias in lists like this because their pet special interest group is not represented. I think lists like this are of little value anyhow unless your literary tastes are in line with the list makers' anyway. #books
Reply

J_Frank_Parnell was starred J_Frank_Parnell was unstarred

Guang
11/13/09

@goldfarb: The problem is subconscious bias. If things like gender, genre, and race really do not matter, than that's all well and good. But if we only think they don't matter to us when they really do on some level....well, that's the possibility that people are complaining about.

I guess the only way to be sure would be to market books without any author information. Might be a bit too extreme, though. #books
Reply

IraeNicole promoted this comment Guang was starred Guang was unstarred

ParryLost
11/13/09

@goldfarb: The point is, they *said* they ignored gender. Unless they are Stephen Colbert, I guarantee you they did not *really* ignore gender, at least not on a subconscious level. Why? Because it is not possible. If you KNOW the gender of the author of a work, it WILL affect your judgement, whether you realise it or not. This has been shown time and time again in psychology experiments -- take the same essay, change the name of the "author" from one gender to the other, and it will affect how people judge it.

Besides, if I gave you a list of ten books all written by women, and told you that these are the best books to come out this year, and I did not consider gender at all, and the fact that all the writers turned out to be female was due to pure chance, deep down, would you really believe me? If not, why do you believe the people behind this list? #books
Reply

ParryLost was starred ParryLost was unstarred

goldfarb
11/13/09

@ParryLost: I realize that subconsciously gender and the rest are still there etc...I just find it frustrating that they've said basically "we tried to just pick the best books" but they're still being criticized...
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because the number of books written by men is probably much higher than those written by women...

damned if you do, damned if you don't...

I would have just put out the list with the statement "Here's our list. Suck It." #books
Reply

goldfarb was starred goldfarb was unstarred

ParryLost
11/13/09

@goldfarb: So you realise a problem is there, but as long as the people had good intentions, we should ignore it?.. I'm not saying they consciously set out to be sexist, I'm saying that their biases should not be ignored. Instead, every time someone brings them up, they are shouted down -- "it's politically correct B.S.!" or some such. So... because we are giving these people the benefit of the doubt, we should ignore real-life problems that really affect female writers?

You know what really peeved me off, though? The fact that they actually claimed to be completely unbiased, that they actually said, "we ignored gender." They didn't even accept the possibility that their list might have an unconscious bias -- and I think that's an even bigger problem than the list itself, because we already have a hard enough time convincing people that unconscious bias *exists,* and that we don't already live in a perfect egalitarian utopia. #books
Reply

ParryLost was starred ParryLost was unstarred

goldfarb
11/13/09

@ParryLost: the "real-life problems that really affect female writers" cannot be addressed by a 'Top 10 List'
bias, unconscious or not, exists and will always exist...and it's interesting to me that your focus is on this one aspect of the list - that there are no women - and seems to assume that the reason there are no women on the list is because of gender and not that the people who made the list picked the books they thought were better...isn't it possible that all the books under consideration written by women were simply not as good (in their opinion) than the ones written by men?
that they claimed to be completely unbiased is unfortunate, simply because, as you've pointed out, this is impossible and saying otherwise simply invites the criticism.
who were the Publishers Weekly judges? were they all men? 51% women, 49% men? does it matter?
what were their criteria?
what does the Top 100 Books of 2009 look like (I'm too lazy to look it up and I should really be working right now)?
I'm realizing now why I find this kind of this annoying and frustrating...it's because it's petty...not to say that women don't get the shit end of the stick in almost every aspect of our society, but jebuz! to not be included on a top 10 list isn't a social injustice...
I seem to have lost track of my point...
over the past year or so I've been very consciously buying books by women, because I've felt that, though my reading habits are reasonably(?) broad they do tend toward male writers (mostly I think because of the subject matter and my tastes), but I've been bucking that trend, taking more chances. when choosing between two, otherwise identically interesting back cover blurbs, I'll pick the one written by a woman...just to hear a different voice. different, not necessarily better, as the results have been mixed, like always.

oh and based on the linked article, that Linda Lowen person is a loony...
Reply

Edited by goldfarb at 11/13/09 11:51 AM goldfarb was starred goldfarb was unstarred

naraoia
11/13/09

In reply to "Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List
Should "best of" lists be determined by committee? Should every "best of" list have to include x number of books by a given gender, or n number of books appealing to such-and-such a demographic? I may disagree with the books they chose, but the very point of the list is that a given person was asked for their honest opinion, not what they thought people wanted to hear.

Also... of every genre book written by a woman last year, "Boneshaker" was the one that got shafted? Don't get me wrong, it's a good book, but it's about as crunchy, inaccessible, and niche as you can possibly get. All due props to Cherie Priest for not trying to be all-things-to-everyone, like Niffenegger, but I doubt very much Priest thought she would be in the running for the Booker prize, either. #books
Reply

Charlie Jane Anders promoted this comment naraoia was starred naraoia was unstarred

tetracycloide
11/13/09

In reply to "Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List
i submit that literary women's books and science-fiction novels are excluded from the mainstream "best of" lists for exactly the same reason. namely that the authors of both groups of novels simply don't follow the same thought process as the people making "best of" lists in the literary world. no matter what claims an individual or group of individuals makes of impartiality it's difficult to endorse something they do not understand on merit alone. #books
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Golem100
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
I haven't read any of those books. I'll have to add them to my increasingly long "to read" list. #books
Reply

Golem100 was starred Golem100 was unstarred

psybab
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
Looking at the editors' vs customers' lists (i.e., on the customers' list, we got glenn beck, dan brown, michele malkin, palin, etc.), I wonder - do Republicans and idiots read more books than we do, or do they all just read the same book, while we read a wider variety? #books
Reply

psybab was starred psybab was unstarred

Faustroll
11/03/09

@psybab: Conservative think tanks drop a ton of cash to buy up copies, raising the amazon rankings. Then they send out emails to the wingnut bloggers, offering them and their readers Palin points to write positive reviews. Occasionally an actual review slips in but mostly it's astroturf. #books
Reply

crashedpc - Haifisch promoted this comment Faustroll was starred Faustroll was unstarred

Spaceknight
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
must really suck to have a publication date in November or December, Amazon won't even consider you for best of 2009! #books
Reply

Ruthless, If you let me promoted this comment Spaceknight was starred Spaceknight was unstarred

SnehalMarten
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
Is anyone here willing to vouch for
"Yellow Blue Tibia" (from Russia with Lurv) by Adam Roberts? Are there any great reveals? I don't mind if you submit a few spoilers.
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment SnehalMarten was starred SnehalMarten was unstarred

tetracycloide
11/03/09

@SnehalMarten: there was one on this site a while back but it might take some searching. i think grey area wrote it, if that helps at all. #books
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

CColdsmoke
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
Man, I've been trying to read Palimpsest for months now. All I can think of when I pick it up is Grimace wrestling Barney in a field of violets beneath a purple haze. It's so damn flowery. Love the concept, hate the execution.

All of these lists (best of 2009 in every category) make me realize I just did not read enough this year.
Reply

crashedpc - Haifisch promoted this comment Edited by CColdsmoke at 11/03/09 12:34 PM CColdsmoke was starred CColdsmoke was unstarred

crashedpc - Haifisch
11/03/09

@CColdsmoke: So... you're saying it's kinda purpley? #books
Reply

CColdsmoke
11/03/09

@crashedpc - Haifisch: Where would you get that notion?

I forgot to mention plums, eggplants, grapes, and amethyst. #books
Reply

CColdsmoke was starred CColdsmoke was unstarred

crashedpc - Haifisch
11/03/09

@CColdsmoke: Damn, I don't want a book that bleak, grimy, and post-apocalyptic. #books
Reply

hitmouse
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
Mieville's "The City and The City" trumped everyone and made it to the top 10 books of 2009 #books
Reply

crashedpc - Haifisch promoted this comment hitmouse was starred hitmouse was unstarred

acrobatic rabbit
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
I for one, would just like to impose my opinion that George R. R. Martin needs to really finish his Ice & Fire series. Like he said he would. Two years ago. #books
Reply

acrobatic rabbit was starred acrobatic rabbit was unstarred

crashedpc - Haifisch
11/03/09

@acrobatic rabbit: Thanks for reminding me that that series exists, and that at this point I have already completely forgotten everything about that series, except for the nasty secret re: the twins. #books
Reply

Belabras
11/03/09

@acrobatic rabbit:
Still waiting here as well. Hurry it up Mr. Martin. #books
Reply

Belabras was starred Belabras was unstarred

acrobatic rabbit
11/03/09

@crashedpc - Haifisch: still unable to scrub that hideous piece of bothersome information from my brain. #books
Reply

acrobatic rabbit was starred acrobatic rabbit was unstarred

enderwiggin13
11/03/09

@acrobatic rabbit: Bloody hell...I forgot all about it. Wasn't October 2009 considered the publish date for the longest time? Finish the series before you die G.R.R.M. #books
Reply

enderwiggin13 was starred enderwiggin13 was unstarred

crashedpc - Haifisch
11/03/09

@enderwiggin13: @JRD_2: Heh... GRRRRRRRM! I'm going to say that IRL whenever I refer to Martin from now on.

As you were. #books
Reply

acrobatic rabbit
11/03/09

@crashedpc - Haifisch: It just rolls off the tongue and fingers nicely doesn't it? GRRRRRRRM! like germies. #books
Reply

acrobatic rabbit was starred acrobatic rabbit was unstarred

DisturbingClown
11/03/09

@acrobatic rabbit: And yet he has plenty of time to go to conventions and hang out on the set of the HBO adaption of the books, it seems.

I remember him saying how quickly the next book would be out since it was mostly written. That was like four years ago. Not that I'm a bitter nerd or anything. #books
Reply

acrobatic rabbit promoted this comment DisturbingClown was starred DisturbingClown was unstarred

acrobatic rabbit
11/03/09

@DisturbingClown: no not at all. i read his updates on his website....i think the latest update is over a year old. talk about writer's block. #books
Reply

acrobatic rabbit was starred acrobatic rabbit was unstarred

Grey_Area
11/03/09

@acrobatic rabbit: I heard in August(?) he had just finished re-writing three chapters and was tinkering with the ending.
He. Will. Never. Finish this. #books
Reply

Grey_Area was starred Grey_Area was unstarred

MrFlake
11/04/09

@Grey_Area: He WILL finish it, even if it involves threats, kidnappings etc.

I have spoken. #books
Reply

Grey_Area promoted this comment MrFlake was starred MrFlake was unstarred

Grey_Area
11/04/09

@MrFlake: We could just take away his paints and lead miniatures. #books
Reply

Grey_Area was starred Grey_Area was unstarred

Starwatcher
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
Love Caitlin Kiernan. Glad she made the list. Read her short story Persephone and you'll be hooked.
Reply

Edited by Starwatcher at 11/03/09 12:15 PM Starwatcher was starred Starwatcher was unstarred

acrobatic rabbit
11/03/09

@Starwatcher: wow! what a great story. thanks for posting that. i'll definitely have to check her out. #books
Reply

acrobatic rabbit was starred acrobatic rabbit was unstarred

Iamthe5thcylon
11/03/09

In reply to Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?
David Anthony Durham is brilliant and you should ABSOLUTELY read the first book - Acacia. #books
Reply

Ruthless, If you let me promoted this comment Iamthe5thcylon was starred Iamthe5thcylon was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#cheriepriest

io9

SUBSCRIBE TO io9

"Kicking And Screaming For Science Fiction" Did No Good, On Publishers Weekly's Best-Of List

Have You Read The Best Books Of 2009 According To Amazon.Com?

Steampunk Zombies of the Seattle Apocalypse

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment