Posts
io9 has a post about the number of male vs female SF authors who were reviewed last year by a variety of venues in response to this post by Strange Horizons. As usual, books by women were greatly underrepresented.
But what surprises me are the comments by people asking where these books by women are and what they should read if they want to read a science fiction book by a woman.
Seriously? You're writing a comment on a website on this amazing thing called the internet, and you can't figure out how to find books by women? Try doing a google search.
Here are two websites with lots of suggestions that came up immediately under the search "science fiction books by women": Goodreads' Science Fiction Books by Female Authors and The New York Review of Science Fiction's 200 Significant Science Fiction Books by Women, 1984–2001, by David G. Hartwell. Wow, that was easy. There's also a list of female SF authors I put together some time ago with a lot of suggestions.
It's really not hard to find female authors in any genre. I can't walk two steps at the bookstore where I work without stumbling over several books by women in any genre (though you don't find many books by men in the romance section). I'll admit, I'm spoiled in that my store's unusual in its size and the variety of books we carry. I forget sometimes that all the backlist titles we carry in full aren't available in other stores. And online bookstores leave a lot to be desired when it comes to discovering books. If you don't know what you're looking for, good luck finding it.
Which is where the Strange Horizons' findings become a problem. More than ever book review magazines and blogs are how readers discover books, and if women's books aren't reviewed, how are readers supposed to find them? And how many more readers will wonder in the future, where the books by women are?
* Edited to add
I just read this great article by Radish Reviews responding to the Strange Horizons info, questioning why Romantic Times Magazine, which reviews a good number of SF/F isn't included in their survey. I've made a habit over the past few years of reading their reviews every month. Ok, I read the SF/F, urban fantasy, graphic novel and teen reviews but they do so much more (general fiction, all branches of romance, and mysteries). They review a mix of titles by men and women, including a few ebook originals. While I don't always agree with their ratings, they've got some great reviews. The reviews are also a good way of seeing what's coming. The magazine itself often has information about the state of the publishing industry. So don't let the "Romantic" label fool you, this is a good source for book reviews.
Showing posts with label book reviewing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label book reviewing. Show all posts
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
Friday, 2 December 2011
Book Reviewers Are Not Entitled To Free Books
I just read a post on Pat's Fantasy Hotlist that... irked me. He saw a letter posted by a publisher re their new reviewer guidelines and didn't like what he read. It's this line in his post I didn't really like:
"I ultimately decide if and when I review a novel, not the publisher."
Now, as a book reviewer, I understand where he's coming from. And he is correct, he does have the right to decide if he will review a book and when. And looking at my own TBR pile, that time can be a week from now to several years from now. Or never.
What I didn't like was the assumption that publishers are somehow obliged to send reviewers books and that reviewers have the right to shrug and toss the book in a corner if they so choose. There is a reciprocal part to this arrangement.
But first, let me paraphrase the letter he's complaining about. The publisher (William Morrow, a subsidiary of Harper Collins) has decided that to lower costs they will stop randomly mailing out books. Instead, reviewers will be able to choose up to three books from a list of upcoming titles each month. They will mail the books out to you at their cost. Your obligation is to read the books they send you within a month of receiving them.
Yes, that's a short timeline, but it is a doable one for reviewers who plan their time. I consider many things when requesting books, and try not to request more than I can read within a reasonable amount of time. I generally try for 1-3 months, so yes, this timeline would be a bit tight even for me. The point here is that if you request a book you need to make sure you can put that at the top of your pile. In fact, I've arranged my NetGalley requests so that I don't ask for something unless I have a time slot open for it - within a month (or within a month of the book's publication date, which isn't always the same thing).
In other words you can do it, but it takes more planning and consideration on the reviewers side.
And while I can't read everything I'm sent, if I've requested a book I make it a point to read it. I turn down a lot of review requests because I don't have time to review the books within a reasonable amount of time. And I feel bad about the books I don't request that publishers spend money mailing me, books that I know I won't read (and to put this into perspective, a hardcover send to Canada from the US costs - according to one package - $26. That's $26 outside the cost of the actual book).
I guess what really disturbed me about Pat's post was the idea that publishers are somehow obligated to send reviewers books. And that as a reviewer, we can decide if we read that book or not. Let me make this clear: we are not entitled to free books. There is nothing that states publishers must supply book reviewers with free books. It is a privilege which can be revoked if the reciprocal part of that arrangement isn't kept.
Thank you to all the publishers who have given me books over the years. I greatly appreciate it.
"I ultimately decide if and when I review a novel, not the publisher."
Now, as a book reviewer, I understand where he's coming from. And he is correct, he does have the right to decide if he will review a book and when. And looking at my own TBR pile, that time can be a week from now to several years from now. Or never.
What I didn't like was the assumption that publishers are somehow obliged to send reviewers books and that reviewers have the right to shrug and toss the book in a corner if they so choose. There is a reciprocal part to this arrangement.
But first, let me paraphrase the letter he's complaining about. The publisher (William Morrow, a subsidiary of Harper Collins) has decided that to lower costs they will stop randomly mailing out books. Instead, reviewers will be able to choose up to three books from a list of upcoming titles each month. They will mail the books out to you at their cost. Your obligation is to read the books they send you within a month of receiving them.
Yes, that's a short timeline, but it is a doable one for reviewers who plan their time. I consider many things when requesting books, and try not to request more than I can read within a reasonable amount of time. I generally try for 1-3 months, so yes, this timeline would be a bit tight even for me. The point here is that if you request a book you need to make sure you can put that at the top of your pile. In fact, I've arranged my NetGalley requests so that I don't ask for something unless I have a time slot open for it - within a month (or within a month of the book's publication date, which isn't always the same thing).
In other words you can do it, but it takes more planning and consideration on the reviewers side.
And while I can't read everything I'm sent, if I've requested a book I make it a point to read it. I turn down a lot of review requests because I don't have time to review the books within a reasonable amount of time. And I feel bad about the books I don't request that publishers spend money mailing me, books that I know I won't read (and to put this into perspective, a hardcover send to Canada from the US costs - according to one package - $26. That's $26 outside the cost of the actual book).
I guess what really disturbed me about Pat's post was the idea that publishers are somehow obligated to send reviewers books. And that as a reviewer, we can decide if we read that book or not. Let me make this clear: we are not entitled to free books. There is nothing that states publishers must supply book reviewers with free books. It is a privilege which can be revoked if the reciprocal part of that arrangement isn't kept.
Thank you to all the publishers who have given me books over the years. I greatly appreciate it.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
On Book Reviews
I came across a few posts recently, both on book reviews, but both with different focuses. The first was on what reviewing does to you as a reader. Grasping For the Wind asked: Do you think book-reviewing has soured your overall experience of books? Why or why not?, in response to this post wherein the reviewer stated he was going to stop reviewing books because it took the joy out of reading.
I can understand where he's coming from. Reviewing entails a fair amount of pressure. Books can take as little as a few hours or as much as a few weeks to read. When a publisher (or worse, an author) has sent you a book, you feel obligated to read it a quickly as possible. Sometimes the book doesn't suit your tastes. Do you know how it feels to email a publisher back and tell them you didn't like the book they spent money on printing and mailing out to you? How about an author you know personally? It's not fun. And luckily it doesn't happen (to me at least) that often. But it does happen and it's not pleasant.
And it means two things for your reading. 1) You're not necessarily reading books of your choosing, pushing back books you'd really prefer reading first in order to fulfill your obligation and 2) you become a lot more critical when reading, finding flaws that normally wouldn't bother you and trying to pick apart what the author's doing so as to give information to potential readers about what the book did well and not so well. In other words, reading becomes less fun as it's more of a job.
Having said that, when I come across a fantastic book, or a book that does setting or characters or pacing better than anything else I've read recently, it's great knowing you can encourage others to read it too. And even with negative reviews, what I didn't like might be what someone else is looking for.
Reviewing is not for everyone, and you need to take breaks (like I'm planning on doing once my current obligation pile is gone) and remind yourself what fun reading can be.
The second batch of sites I encountered were ones discussing the ratio of male/female reviewers and the gender bias of books reviewed. You can find several pie charts concerning the SF magazines' ratios here. And here's the post that linked me to it and got me wondering what my own averages are.
So I went to my pages, where I list reviews by subgenres, and counted them all. Now, I read three categories of books: books that interest me, books I'm sent and books I feel I should read because they're classics/popular or deal with a subgenre I haven't read/reviewed in a while.
I've never stopped to wonder if I'm reviewing more books by men or women. I like books that have good characters, intelligent plots and comprehensive world building.
So here are my stats (this only includes published reviews, I have several in the wings waiting for publication):
For fantasy I've reviewed 33 books by men (including 3 horror novels) and 22 by women (1 horror).
For urban fantasy it's an almost even 8 by men, 9 by women.
For science fiction (including steampunk) it's 23 by men, 16 by women (which is higher than I expected).
For YA, 2 fantasy and 11 SF by men, 9 fantasy and 10 SF by women.
I also have 1 anthology and 1 book written by a husband and wife team that don't fit the above categories.
That makes my totals 76 books by men, 65 by women. Or roughly 52% of the books I review are by men and 46% are by women (that leaves 2% 'other'). So I guess my gender bias is fairly even and skewed only a bit towards men. I think that's well done since, as I said, I've never based my reading on gender only on genre - trying to make my genres even out.
And I've not done the best there. I've reviewed 57 fantasy novels (my preferred genre), 17 urban fantasy (my least favourite), 39 science fiction and 30 YA.
Do you notice a gender balance in your reading or a gender bias? Do you care about the author's gender? Do you think reviewers should try to balance their reviews so as to avoid a bias?
I can understand where he's coming from. Reviewing entails a fair amount of pressure. Books can take as little as a few hours or as much as a few weeks to read. When a publisher (or worse, an author) has sent you a book, you feel obligated to read it a quickly as possible. Sometimes the book doesn't suit your tastes. Do you know how it feels to email a publisher back and tell them you didn't like the book they spent money on printing and mailing out to you? How about an author you know personally? It's not fun. And luckily it doesn't happen (to me at least) that often. But it does happen and it's not pleasant.
And it means two things for your reading. 1) You're not necessarily reading books of your choosing, pushing back books you'd really prefer reading first in order to fulfill your obligation and 2) you become a lot more critical when reading, finding flaws that normally wouldn't bother you and trying to pick apart what the author's doing so as to give information to potential readers about what the book did well and not so well. In other words, reading becomes less fun as it's more of a job.
Having said that, when I come across a fantastic book, or a book that does setting or characters or pacing better than anything else I've read recently, it's great knowing you can encourage others to read it too. And even with negative reviews, what I didn't like might be what someone else is looking for.
Reviewing is not for everyone, and you need to take breaks (like I'm planning on doing once my current obligation pile is gone) and remind yourself what fun reading can be.
The second batch of sites I encountered were ones discussing the ratio of male/female reviewers and the gender bias of books reviewed. You can find several pie charts concerning the SF magazines' ratios here. And here's the post that linked me to it and got me wondering what my own averages are.
So I went to my pages, where I list reviews by subgenres, and counted them all. Now, I read three categories of books: books that interest me, books I'm sent and books I feel I should read because they're classics/popular or deal with a subgenre I haven't read/reviewed in a while.
I've never stopped to wonder if I'm reviewing more books by men or women. I like books that have good characters, intelligent plots and comprehensive world building.
So here are my stats (this only includes published reviews, I have several in the wings waiting for publication):
For fantasy I've reviewed 33 books by men (including 3 horror novels) and 22 by women (1 horror).
For urban fantasy it's an almost even 8 by men, 9 by women.
For science fiction (including steampunk) it's 23 by men, 16 by women (which is higher than I expected).
For YA, 2 fantasy and 11 SF by men, 9 fantasy and 10 SF by women.
I also have 1 anthology and 1 book written by a husband and wife team that don't fit the above categories.
That makes my totals 76 books by men, 65 by women. Or roughly 52% of the books I review are by men and 46% are by women (that leaves 2% 'other'). So I guess my gender bias is fairly even and skewed only a bit towards men. I think that's well done since, as I said, I've never based my reading on gender only on genre - trying to make my genres even out.
And I've not done the best there. I've reviewed 57 fantasy novels (my preferred genre), 17 urban fantasy (my least favourite), 39 science fiction and 30 YA.
Do you notice a gender balance in your reading or a gender bias? Do you care about the author's gender? Do you think reviewers should try to balance their reviews so as to avoid a bias?
Thursday, 14 October 2010
How does book reviewing affect the reading experience?
This question was asked over at Got Schephs' blog. It's a good question, and two reviewers she got to respond had interesting answers.
Anything you do for fun isn't as much fun once you do it as a job, even if that job is reviewing books for your own blog. I find I'm often not able to read the book of my choice because I have a book I'm obligated to read that has to be read first. And there's only so much reading time in a week. While I try to choose my review books carefully, there are times when you feel like reading one thing but have to read something else instead. And times when you choose badly and have to push through, finishing a book you'd otherwise put down and move on from.
I also read a lot more critically. I notice typos and inconsistencies more than I used to. I parse the books more, wondering why the author did this when - as a writer - I would have done something else.
When a book is well written, this means I appreciate it more than I would have before. When it's poorly written...
Anything you do for fun isn't as much fun once you do it as a job, even if that job is reviewing books for your own blog. I find I'm often not able to read the book of my choice because I have a book I'm obligated to read that has to be read first. And there's only so much reading time in a week. While I try to choose my review books carefully, there are times when you feel like reading one thing but have to read something else instead. And times when you choose badly and have to push through, finishing a book you'd otherwise put down and move on from.
I also read a lot more critically. I notice typos and inconsistencies more than I used to. I parse the books more, wondering why the author did this when - as a writer - I would have done something else.
When a book is well written, this means I appreciate it more than I would have before. When it's poorly written...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)