Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I was on goodreads, and out of curiosity, I took a look on final 10 Readers' Favorite nominees in SciFi category. I generally never use contests like that as a guide, but I saw an ad and I was curious about what I'd find there and if I recognize any names (spoiler: I recognized one). What I saw made me ask some questions. Out of 10 top candidates, 8 are female authors. I read the descriptions - I have never read the books themselves and likely never will, so that's all I have to go on - and in 7, the main protagonist(s) are women, in one they are bots, one had a mixed crew and in one I couldn't determine it. In young adult SciFi category, all 10 nominees are female. So my question is - why? I also checked last year winners - 11:4 female authors.
Since we're living in a clown world in clown times, I must post a disclaimer that I have no problem with either female SciFi authors or female sci-fi protagonists, and enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) books with either. Yet, somehow I didn't expect this situation. Why is it so - is it the case that 80+% of SciFi writers are now female? 80+% of good ones? Goodreads sample is skewed? Vote is rigged or meddled with somehow? Note I am not seeking a value judgement on this situation (as ultimately I personally don't care at all who is nominated or wins), but would like to understand its genesis.
Part of this is the standard stuff. Among mainstream publishers, and mainstream awards, there's a ton of pressures against recognition of new male authors (and, increasingly, even previously well-recognized ones); the male authors who are successful tend to take a cult following approach that leaves them less benefit from begging for reviews, or write in ways that don't really pull reviews, or not be willing to play the social media game.
((for a low culture war example, I will defend literally every Timothy Zahn book, even the kinda-trite Quadrail series. But the well-received and genuinely strong pieces get low-double-digit reviews. If you've read one of his books, what is there to say that doesn't detract other readers from the story?))
An increasing emphasis on novella-length novels by standard publishers at higher prices on one side and Kindle Unlimited on the other has also put some weird pressures into the mainstream system. I don't have a very complete mental image, but from what I have seen, a lot of conventional ways for workday authors to make a living publishing conventional stories that can take off been smothered or at least greatly reduced, the remainder have increasingly become the domain of the greats, while most of the novices and introductory writers -- even within the -- have gone to edistribution approaches that make it hard to get mainstream applaud or concentrate a large number of readers. The few who can tend to be Jemisins, as skilled at handling the social side as they are at writing character play, and that's traditionally not an area men have focused.
There's also just the flow and the fixtures; you're seeing the detritus accumulating at points of friction, rather than the motion of the waves. The Puppies tend to call them SFWAs, but there's a decent amount outside of that set, and a lot other other incestuous interactions (how many Goodreads-Top-Tens would you expect to be LA Times Critics At Large? Might surprise you!).
I like your choice of examples, because Icarus is basically a much better-executed Quadrail.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link