Why this article annoys the snot out of me...

This article has been doing the rounds - Jonathan Emmett on why women are responsible for everything wrong with the world why a publishing workforce dominated by women means boys don't like books. I almost want to cross out the second bit because it is as ludicrous as the first.

It may just be me, but I always like some statistics to back up such publicly asserted statements. Is 'boys lagging behind girls in reading' just a recent issue? Have women always dominated publishing? Some facts please. Do women even dominate publishing now? I have two publishers - one of them is run by a man, the other one has women at the helm here in New Zealand and a man at the helm in Australia - and that's only editorially speaking. A man has overall responsibility for the second company here in New Zealand. Do women buy too many non-piratey books for their sons? Are there no male writers writing for boys? (Charlie Higson, James Patterson, John Flanagan, David Hill, Brian Falkner, Peter Millet, Anthony Horowitz, Paul Stewart, Eoin Colfer, Rick Riordan, John Green, Phillip Pullman, Kyle Mewburn, Michael Grant, Patrick Ness, Terry Pratchett, Ken Catran, Michael Morpurgo, Mal Peet etc...etc...etc... and that's just a fraction of the living blokes who write on topics like war, zombies, spies, and ... oh yes ... pirates).   Everything might be based in truth but it just comes across as blunt, inflammatory kind of commentary that can't really help in the end. To me it just seems designed to annoy people. And bingo, I am annoyed. Lordy the trolls are now writing the articles.

Boys might ask for book advice from their dads but I can tell you right now plenty of dads grew up not giving a toss about books either and couldn't recommend a title if they tried, and their dads before them. This isn't a new thing. And is it just what books are handed to them or is it the fact that in some households there are no books at all, and other male role models aren't seen to be reading, and books aren't 'cool'. Maybe there are too many sport trainings, or too much playstation? See I can be just as anecdotal as you. But really, can we get some scientific thinking and statistics please?? And if it's a problem that's worsening can we then suggest some practical solutions that might work rather than just pointing a finger and saying the women did it?

And Mums (and nans) have been raising sons since...oh, I don't know...since sons were invented. For all the boys who have read in the past it's often because their mums and nans bought them books. And all you can say Mr Emmett is that we don't give our sons sufficient books about pirates?? I tried to raise my son as a reading boy. I gave my son books about pirates, and zombies and boy spies and war to try and spark an interest in reading. He's never been a fan and no amount of blokey books seems to have changed his mind. It's not for want of trying Mr Emmett.

And while my son isn't keen I know many boys his age who are. And many women who work with books who bend over backwards to find the right thing to tempt a boy to read. And I think maybe the pendulum has swung too far and we have unknowingly, subconsciously taught boys that anything not zombie, sporting, or piratical is 'unmanly' and might give them girl cooties. But I don't have sufficient statistics to back this up. All I know is that growing up I read war comics (still available now in handy dandy omnibus editions), and The Lord of the Rings (one of my all time favourite books), and Treasure Island. It didn't bother me that these weren't books about fairies or romance or whatever other things you think dominate female publishers' minds.

Whatever truths your article contained Mr Emmett were subsumed by your confidence that women are to blame for boys lagging behind in reading. And it annoyed the snot out of me (shoot, I'm a woman - we don't like bogeys - my mistake). Thankfully I am not alone in my views.

Good books for young human beings...

I have been thinking a bit on the whole genderisation of children's books issue as this was recently doing the social media rounds, with bookshops and reviewers overseas declining to stock/review children's books marketed specifically to one gender. As radical as this seems I think I agree with the idea. We need more books for boys, I hear all too often. Boys might decline to read books with pink, or sparkles, or pictures of girls on the cover and yet often girls couldn't give a toss what's on the cover if they are interested in the book, whether its blue or depicts a machine or something 'manly' or whatever seems cool for boys to publishers/marketers/promoters etc.... Because deep down many girls never learn to judge a book this way and yet many boys do. And I don't believe it's because girls are innately more tolerant or broader minded - I think we consciously or (more likely) subconsciously tell boys that reading girl-centric stories is an embarrassing thing for boys to do.

I don't think boys are hardwired genetically to reject images of girls on book covers, or things that shine or are pink. Where is the evolutionary value in that? How can it be a bad idea to read a story that might be centered on the opposite gender which makes up around half the population? Wouldn't our boys be better off reading about girls as well as boys? Wouldn't our boys be better citizens as adults if they read stories more widely across the genders? Shouldn't we take some responsibility for why boys think this way? We are concerned about sexual harassment, sexual crimes and the gender imbalance and yet we continue to push for books for boys. I didn't stop to ask if it was a boy book or a girl book when I was reading as a youngster. Covers of children's and teens books were generally unisex when I was growing up. Why did we change this? I do my best to just write good stories, yet I too have fallen into the trap of suggesting  my titles might be better for one gender or the other. I'm going to work hard to change this. My books are good books for young human beings. End of story.

The new religion...

I have wittered on at length in the past about book reviews. Specifically, poor reviews and how to survive them if you are the author of the book reviewed. But I discovered (unfortunately) another downside to poor, or shall we say, 1 star reviews. As I wandered Goodreads lonely as a cloud looking up some info for my research I came across a long book discussion on a popular book which I rather liked. The discussion ripped the book and its author to shreds. They approached it as a lesson in how not to write, with exposition on poor character development, telling not showing, etc... and folks, I felt nervous that I had liked the book. Was there something wrong with me? I mean, this level of vitriol surely must have some substance behind it. Was I too clueless to pick up on all these inherent failures? Did that make me a poor reader? Or worse, a poor writer, because I wasn't aware of these faults. I mean, I'd actually enjoyed reading this particular book. Looking at some of the issues raised, I disagree with some of the points made and the evidence for them. I don't see the examples given as particularly good ones of the crime the writer is accused of. With things like show not tell I am a firm believer of having elements of both. Showing all the time can become exhausting to read. I also think one person's poor character is another person's recognizable friend/self. The disturbing thing to me was my reaction. I felt bad I liked the book that had earned such a scathing review. I examined my own skills because of that review. I am still frequently amazed that people get so very angry about books and their content. Maybe it's like where people get highly agitated trying to defend or debunk a religion. And we feel defensive or kindred to that person in response. But I worried about my reaction. I don't want to be too afraid to pick up a book for fear of other people judging me badly on my choice.

And lovely writery friend and fellow blogger Maureen Crisp sent me a most interesting link with a terrific research project examining the number of male main protagonists (compared with female) and male vs. female authors of YA books (after the recent outcry over the perceived dominance of female authors in YA literature). The number of times I've been told we need more stories written specifically for boys, at which I've just nodded, is more than I care to mention. But hang on. The sex of the protagonist, or the genre of story have never stopped me reading something I thought looked interesting. Holy moly folks, I spent years reading war comics followed by years of romance novels. I've enjoyed male writers and male protagonists (Tolkien, Lewis, Dahl, Horowitz, Gaiman, Forster, Hemingway, Dickens, Conrad, Theroux, Hardy, Faulkes), a mix (Gaiman, Rowling, Le Guin, Susan Cooper, Holly Black, Hinton) and female writers of female protags (Alcott, Austen, Bronte, Wilder, LM Montgomery etc...). All I wanted was a good book. I've never been put off by the gender of the main character. After all I'm not allergic to the opposite sex. In fact I'm rather interested in them. Are boys not remotely curious about females? It hasn't stopped them reading the Hunger Games.  Let's not encourage boys to steer clear of reading books where the main protagonist is female. Because otherwise we run the risk of perpetuating a myth we're creating. Lets just help them find good books that they enjoy.