From the Editors
“Here we go again”: The fiction magazine sausage-fest
‘I’m just being a bitch again’, wrote Amy King, in response to a post by Blake Butler at the HTMLGIANT blog announcing the contributors for issue #2 of We Are Champion magazine. None of the ten writers is female.
King originally posted a comment at the original HTMLGIANT post:
I love Gary Lutz and Mike Young, but I ain’t buying this mag. Three women writers in the entire contents of two issues? And it’s a new mag?
…
I’m sure the editor, or someone, will come along and insult me, call me bitchy names, mock my face, etc in “defense” of the contents and for pointing out such obviousness, but it’s plain and simple: here we go again, repeating the old exclusive boy’s club traditions of what we thought was fading. Shall we all retreat to Black Mountain and sit at Olson’s feet whilst we write poems for Pound? Oh, I’ll shut up; that’s my job.
Butler later wrote a post in response, titled ‘Language over Body’ (and imagine what another Butler would have to say about that):
When you are reading or editing an issue of a magazine, do you perform a contributor penis and vagina count, to verify a decent mix? Do you perform a race count? Do you verify the range of the letters in the last names?
While these questions did inspire me to conclude that, indeed, none of the writers in Kill Your Darlings‘ first issue had names containing the letter ‘X’, they also got me thinking about commissioning and literary journals. I originally came across this kerfuffle via Brian Spears’ post at The Rumpus (which was titled, more modestly, ‘Diversity in Voices’). Spears, the poetry editor at The Rumpus, responded in seriousness to Butler’s questions, offering that:
When I put together the poems for our National Poetry Month project, I solicited work directly, and I aimed for diversity not only in gender, but also in ethnicity, age, stage of career, sexual orientation and poetic aesthetic. Focusing for the moment on gender, I finished with 16 men and 15 women …
Out of interest, I had a look at the Kill Your Darlings balance in Issue One, which is 11 to 8, in favour of male writers. I suspect that this minor margin will reverse in direction in the next issue, and will do a little tumble and weave each time we publish a new issue. Like Spears, the editors at Kill Your Darlings are guided in their commissioning by the wish to publish writers at different stages of their careers, be they household names or writers discovered through their blogs; writers with different stories to tell and ways of telling them.
Beyond that, the comment’s not mine to make, but the question of diversity in journals is an interesting one, and closely linked to the project of each individual journal. I only have to think of Peril, the Asian-Australian arts and culture magazine; or Roomers, a magazine for residents of rooming houses; or Overland’s blog, whose front page features a post that begins ‘I am a wog, and I’m proud of it’, or another that begins ‘My friend Cadie, a Garawa woman…’, to know that diverse voices and stories are represented in the Australian journal market.
(From here onwards, I’ll concentrate on the male–female debate, but obviously many of these points are well worth considering with regard to the representation of edit: other minorities.)
However, there’s clearly not much benefit in simply pointing out that some journals do a good job of recognising the worth in publishing diverse voices. There’s still the issue of what message an all-male magazine sends to female writers and readers, and the issue of what to do about it. If I were a writer researching where to submit my work, and I came across a journal that contained no work by women, would I consider sending my work there? Even if I believed the work was a match aesthetically, I’m not sure. Writing and submission and rejection are not to be undertaken lightly – as we know, writing is poorly recompensed at the sub-Rowling level – and it might seem like a waste of time to send work to the editor of such an apparently exclusive publication.
But what can be done in the face of such an odd line-up? In the slew of comments that followed these posts, many different plans of action surfaced. Among these were the old ‘read submissions blind’ rejoinder, which I find satisfying in the blind orchestra auditions stories. But that path isn’t useful at all if, as some commenters claimed, women aren’t submitting work in the same numbers as men. Butler himself claimed that he once received 224 submissions for a publication, only 4 of which were from female writers. However, Spears said that he had no problem at all in finding quality submissions from women, with which I’m sure many editors would agree.
It might seem unfair to focus thus sharply on a journal that is still finding its niche and audience, and whose editor, Gene Kwak, said ‘i solicited plenty of women. guys too’. Nevertheless, I still feel uncomfortable about an all-male contributor list. What I also find troubling is that the selection was defended by many (though not the editor, as far as I know) on the basis of, as Spears termed it, the ‘it’s the work that matters, not the writer’ attitude. This charming position seems to preclude any discussion about why the selector likes a particular work or selection of works. By not interrogating the standards by which the individual pieces are valued, the resulting publication takes on, as we see, a strikingly skewed character. In this case, WAC #2 seems to turn a blind eye to the struggle for equal gender representation in the artistic arena – not merely an ironically doffed hat, it’s a complete and utter stonewall.
The Count at SWF: on the representation of women writers in reviews, prizes and genre writing
The Year It Was for Kill Your Darlings
9 Responses to “Here we go again”: The fiction magazine sausage-fest
Leave a Reply
-
Current Issue
Kill Your Darlings, No. 8
January 2012 The Stella Prize
Kill Your Darlings is a proud supporter of The Stella Prize.
2:25 pm, April 29, 2010
Whilst I can appreciate that these issues broach past sexism, toward other ‘minorities,’ in some sense the situation with women writing is worse because women aren’t actually a minority. They make up more than 50% of the population. This isn’t to say they’re not oppressed, though.
I think you really hit the nail on the head when you said “What I also find troubling is that the selection was defended by many (though not the editor, as far as I know) on the basis of, as Spears termed it, the ‘it’s the work that matters, not the writer’ attitude. This charming position seems to preclude any discussion about why the selector likes a particular work or selection of works.”
Editors who use this defence really must miss any understanding of oppression at all.
I’ve had some nauseating discussions with some people arguing against equal opportunity because they don’t like minorities being given special treatment – but what it always comes down to is that they don’t think these groups are discriminated against or they don’t understand how this hinders there ability to participate equally in society.
After this topic coming up again and again, you would think editors would be a little bit more aware given it’s not a good look for them to have these charges laid against them.
6:43 pm, April 29, 2010
On their “About” page, WAC says they are looking for writers who are “cocksure and a little smarmy, but… not being an actual asshole.”
Cocksure? Smarmy? Asshole? Aren’t they all words we use fairly exclusively to describe males? And, really, even “champion” isn’t exactly gender-neutral.
And as part of the submission guidelines, they list examples of what keeps them “satiated”, a list in which females barely get a mention.
Thinking about the significance and effect of that, I get sucked down into the very murky water of concepts like “the male aesthetic”.
It is definitely “uncomfortable”.
12:05 am, April 30, 2010
I think this issue is hard to unravel. I don’t know enough about it to have a definite opinion – I’m not sure where and how sexism enters in, whether it’s deliberate or perhaps by instinct, people sticking to ‘their own’ – which is no less excusable for being unconscious.
I do know I’m slightly uncomfortable with this focus on percentages. If (as one of the replies to Butler’s mini-post said) the editor happens to prefer work by men, I think that’s fine – it’s a matter of taste. If it’s an award, I think that’s different – the winners are upheld as (objectively) the best in the field, so a male-skewed winning list is problematic.
I personally think an editor should be allowed to have whatever taste they please. I don’t know if it’s reasonable to turn up at every editor’s doorstep and demand they fill a quota of female/black/whatever writers. In the name of what? Equality? Equality is a great thing to aim for, but isn’t it democratic to allow people their point of view?
I’d be more inclined (if I didn’t like the percentage break-up) to not buy the magazine, to not read it, to ignore it, to go somewhere else – not to hang around and grafitti its walls.
My only real comment on this – that I feel strongly about – is that there should be more female editors, to add variance to the people doing the selecting. Is that a male or female editor of WAC, by the way?
5:14 pm, May 2, 2010
Last year I co-edited The Big Issue’s fiction edition with the mag’s female deputy editor and we were surprised to note that our final selection was heavily weighted towards female writers. It wasn’t deliberate, but then again, we did wonder if it had something to do with our taste as two women, and talked about the possibility of consulting with a third (male) editor next time to see if that made a difference. I do think that taste necessarily influences selection to some extent. And gender and cultural background can sometimes influence taste (though by no means always), as can a culture’s overall definition of good taste – which may be influenced by which gender or culture are deemed to have the most valid or respected voices.
It’s an interesting debate and an interesting post Estelle, if I do say so myself as a fellow KYD team member …
7:29 pm, May 4, 2010
Nice reply Jo, more level-headed than mine (sorry if it was harsh in tone, Estelle – just ranting). Interesting to note that Overland recently had a blog post on editorial bias. I still think editors should be allowed to select whatever/however they like (although it’s good to hear that some editors strive to promote equality) – if the reader doesn’t like it they’ll (hopefully) vote with their feet.
10:32 pm, May 4, 2010
Benjamin—
The fact that women aren’t, technically speaking, a minority is definitely salient, and thank you for picking up on that. I think that alone makes a ‘it’s about the work, not the writer’ attitude seem, at best, naïve, and at worst, cruelly exclusive.
Lani—
A publication – no matter how consciously or un- the writership is composed – creates an identity through its iterations. From the bits and pieces you listed, I’m not surprised that the journal has few female contributors, which is certainly its prerogative. But, obviously, as a consumer/reader, I am drawn to publications that I can identify with, or that embody social/artistic projects I am interested in. At the heart of my discomfort is that gender equity is something I’m very interested in, and have worked professionally and socially to combat – and something that I automatically look for in cultural artefacts. I’m taking the editor’s comment that he did attempt to solicit female submissions in good faith, and I wish him well. But I was interested to know how other people would to the magazine’s line-up, and there’s clearly no consensus.
Prithvi—
Curating a selection of writers is certainly a matter of taste. But I’m of the opinion that all cultural production is inherently political. Sure, as you point out, there’s a matter of scale here – it’s not a national prize worth lots of money. But are the unconscious, subjective selection processes of people who select national prizewinners so different? In Jo’s post about the 2009 Miles Franklin sausage fest, she quoted Morag Fraser as having said that the committee ‘walked out of our two-hour shortlist meeting without realising what we had done’. I find that astounding.
I’ll just reiterate that I understand how complicated it is to solicit and select quality material for journals, let alone be aware of the social impact of the selection. An editor should of course be able to select the material they choose to publish – they’re tastemakers. But they should also be able to defend their choices and take in feedback from their market. I agree that percentages are vile, but that’s not really what I’m advocating. I’m more interested in, as I said above, knowing what other people think about the choice, and also in highlighting what can happen when there is a lack of interrogation in editorial processes.
I agree that the obvious route as a consumer is simply not to engage financially with the object in question. However, as you say, bias of every kind is certainly unconscious, and I’m still not certain whether we understand exactly how much of it is unconscious. I think the avalanche of comment has had some effect in removing this bias (or lack of consideration for issues of representation) in at least some degree for some people – I seem to remember Butler commenting that he would be more mindful of the issue from now on.
The editor of WAC is male.
Jo—
That’s really interesting. As I mentioned above, I am no taste-defier. I am seriously pro-taste! I don’t mind the odd smarmy prose every now and then (you know me…) But I’m also seriously pro-feminism, and I suppose what nagged at me was that I would find it incredibly difficult to publish something that only contained male voices. I would find that a schedule-put-backing, big-drive-soliciting, deal-breaking problem if it happened to me. So – with this ‘bias’ affecting my judgment, I suppose – I was just really surprised and disappointed to discover that it was possible to come across a journal that didn’t seem to mind if it was alienating its readers (like it did Amy King) by not including any female writers.
I definitely think that my gender and cultural background – including my education – influences my taste. But I don’t think that taste is a static thing, Taste is fluid, and tastes can be acquired.
2:17 pm, May 5, 2010
hey estelle. i definitely felt uncomfortable about the all-male issue. it’s something i should’ve broached in my ‘about the mag’ section but for reasons of time/money i didn’t. reason being that my designer, jessica ewald, does amazing work at a huge discount for me and i feel bad even asking her to tweak italics on one or two things. and yes, i never fell back on the “just picked the best work” or “it’s just the work” attitude. because that would mean that if it were just “the work” and the work happened to be all male that i would clearly have a bias. for me it was more a confluence of shitty timing and events. for this particular issue i solicited 11 women and 5 men beyond what i’d already pulled in from subs. 2 men got back to me and 1 woman, a poet whose work i highly admire by the way. only thing was she responded so late in the process that i felt like her particular set of poems didn’t necessarily fit in this issue. we’ve all solicited writers who then sent us stuff that wasn’t exactly what we’d envisioned. even still, i told her, send me work soon for the next issue, as i didn’t want to hold onto her poems for 3 months making her take them out of her submission rotation. and though i established the deadlines arbitrarily, they still existed and i thought that as a service to the writers and readers i should adhere to them. is any of this making sense? it’s late and i also have needed to rehash this on a few blogs. anyway, i do regret that the “about mag” section and even the list at the bottom of the submissions section is so heavily swayed toward men (this is being fixed) and as many of my friends would tell you, even looking at my bookshelves, there’s clearly not that much of a disparity in my reading habits. but, in the end, i’m glad that this has bolstered conversation and once we get our blog fixed (it’s on the fritz right now) i’m planning on having an open discussion w/ elisa gabbert and amy king and a few others. a thing i planned in advance of the great convo at htmlg, but i’m a student in an mfa program right now and am swamped these last 2 weeks of class. ah, enough rambling. hope this gave some insight.
2:20 pm, May 5, 2010
hold on, i realize the beginning doesn’t make that much sense. what i meant was that i was going to change the ‘about us’ section w/ each issue, basically as a letter from the editor, but i didn’t change it from the first issue because of the great work jess does for me.
10:34 pm, June 21, 2010
Apologies for the seeming delay in replying, Gene – I thought I had. I was really interested to read your response, and sympathise with the ‘confluence of shitty timing and events’ that led to the Issue Two line-up of WAC. Even though I was surprised and disappointed to hear about the gender skew, I’m aware of how these things can converge in an odd and undesirable way. I really wish you all the best with WAC.