/
    Skip to main content
    Advertisement
    Click here

    No men allowed: publisher accepts novelist's 'year of women' challenge

    Small press And Other Stories will produce no books by men in 2018 in answer to Kamila Shamsie’s call for direct action to beat gender bias in publishing
    Who needs men? … the writers shortlisted for the 2015 Baileys women’s prize for fiction with chair Shami Chakrabarti
    Who needs men? … the writers shortlisted for the 2015 Baileys women’s prize for fiction with chair Shami Chakrabarti. Photograph: Ian Gavan/Getty Images
    Small press And Other Stories has answered author Kamila Shamsie’s provocative call for a year of publishing women to redress “gender bias” in the literary world.
    The novelist made what she called her “provocation” in Saturday’s Guardian, revealing that just under 40% of books submitted to the Booker prize over the past five years were by women, and pointing to everything from the author Nicola Griffith’s research, which found that far more prize-winning novels have male than female protagonists, to the Vida statistics showing that male authors and reviewers command more space than female.
    “At this point, I’m going to assume that the only people who really doubt that there is a gender bias going on are those who stick with the idea that men are better writers and better critics,” wrote Shamsie. “Enough. Across the board, enough ... I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality ... Why not have a year of publishing women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.”
    And Other Stories, the literary press that uses a network of readers to source its titles, has become the first publisher to accept the challenge. “I think we can do it,” said publisher Stefan Tobler. “And if we don’t do it, what is going to change?”
    A small publisher, And Other Stories releases 10 to 12 new titles a year. “We’ve realised for a while that we’ve published more men than women,” said Tobler. “This year we’ve done seven books by men and four by women ... We have a wide range of people helping us with our choices, and our editors are women ... and yet somehow we still publish more books by men than women.”
    Tobler’s colleague Sophie Lewis, a senior editor at And Other Stories, said she expected the team would be “rescheduling male writers’ books for other years [and] digging harder and further than usual, in order to find the really good women’s writing that we want to publish” in 2018.
    But the main thing she wants to do over the course of the year is “to examine the selection and promotion process, the production of their books from commissioning to reader’s bedside”.
    “By taking on the challenge we will expose our systems and the paths of recommendation and investigation that brings books to us, and we will end up becoming a kind of small-scale model for a much bigger inquiry about why women’s writing is consistently sidelined or secondary, the poor cousin rather than the equal of men’s writing,” said Lewis.
    “Personally, I’d rather not think about it. Why should we have to? Surely great writing will out? It seems not – or it seems so consistently that women’s writing makes it less often that we have to doubt the fairness of the systems in place. So it will be worth carrying out a year of publishing only women in order to document the difficulties involved.”
    Tobler said he “hoped other publishers would join in”, but while literary agent Clare Alexander praised Shamsie for “purposefully being an agent provocateur”, she said it was unlikely that the UK’s larger publishers would commit to publishing only women.
    Advertisement
    “But it’s a consciousness-raising thing,” she said. “I do think this country defaults male, given half a chance, so we have to have some conscious corrective. It can’t just be left to the Baileys once a year. We need a climate of positive thinking.”
    Shamsie said that she had been “struck” after publication of her essay “by the number of people who’ve assured me that they know I was just trying to start a conversation and didn’t intend anyone to take a Year of Publishing Women seriously”.
    “I didn’t know that myself (surely radicalism has to be the only way to take on such entrenched power structures) but was beginning to be convinced by everyone else’s conviction when And Other Stories (headed by a man it should be said) came along and said, ‘OK, we’re in,’” said the acclaimed novelist.
    While Shamsie is “sure there are a lot of people within publishing who have been rolling their eyes at the whole article”, she said she has “only heard about that secondhand or by reading between the lines of conversation or noticing certain obvious silences”, with those getting in touch with her “largely positive”.
    “By positive, I don’t only mean those who agree that a year of publishing women is a good idea but also those who say you’re right to point out there’s a problem but here are other ways to address it,” she said. “So there’ve been a host of interesting suggestions: a women in literature festival; a commitment to ‘genderless’ covers for novels; a strategy to specifically address the gender imbalance of books submitted for literary prizes. All of which sound good to me – we need as many suggestions as possible to counter the depth and breadth of the problem.”
    Griffith, who has led a call for more research into books submitted for literary prizes, and their subject matter, agreed, saying that the “more ideas about how to push back against the problem, the better”.
    “This is a huge problem for all of us, however we identify, gender-wise. Half the people in the world aren’t being listened to, and this has an impact on all the people. We all need to pay attention to this, and find a long-term solution,” she said.
    After analysing the winners of six major literary prizes over the past 15 years – and concluding that “women seem to have literary cooties” – Griffith is now trying to coordinate the “incredible” response to her initial blog post, which has seen “dozens” of people coming forward and volunteering to parse other literary awards.
    Shamsie’s solution “isn’t the front I choose to commit to ... but I can see how it would be useful for others,” Griffith said. “My only caveat is that this could be used to solidify battle lines, sharpen the us-versus-them attitude, which I’m not sure is the most useful approach.”
    “Provocation,” added the novelist, “is one way to bring attention to the problem. Another is brightly coloured pie charts. I’m sure there are a score of others, waiting to be born.”

    comments (255)

    Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
    This discussion is closed for comments.
    We’re doing some maintenance right now. You can still read comments, but please come back later to add your own.
    Commenting has been disabled for this account (why?)
    1 2 3 4 5
    Loading comments… Trouble loading?
    • 1 2
      I think that this is not the way to promote female writers. Short stories or books should be published on merit not on gender. Sad day when some publishers need to promote this idea.
      Reply |
    • 0 1
      God I love equality. Nothing like it. I published around a half dozen short stories in my 20s as a young aspiring writer-chap. I even won a small prize, and was shortlisted twice more.
      But I knew the literary world was heading into a state of such joyful and resplendent equality that I gave that up for different ventures. I would never have been able to compete in the ruthless landscape of equality.
      I have never regretted that choice, and articles like this always confirm it.
      Reply |
    • 1 2
      This whole thing is so ridiculous I can't believe people are actually discussing it.
      Time to go, please.
      Reply |
    • 0 1
      There's another kind of, shall we call it selective myopia, going on in the literary world. Out of all the female authored books nominated for the long list of the Bailey prize, only two were written by Americans. Are we to assume that American female authors aren't very good writers compared to all the many female Uk residents that were nominated? Only two of the long list nominees is well and truly American by birth and current residence. I'd add, only two are Canadian as well.
      It seems to me that discrimination in the literary world is indeed alive and well, but that bias can and is perpetuated in the mindset of the very people who decry bias… only if it conveniently applies to their exclusive little group.
      Reply |
    • 0 1
      So pathetic....weak minded fools.
      Reply |
    • 4 5
      I got into an argument once in a right-on bookshop, where they had women writers and men writers on separate shelves. they had Homer with the chaps, and I asked them how they knew that Homer was he?
      Reply |
    • 2 3
      Since I assume they don't plan on determining gender identity biologically, who is to say who is a woman or not except the author herself?
      Reply |
    • 0 1
      Sounds great. Now if we can create a rule that the authors chosen are writing about substantive matters and not clouding the waters with romance novels and pseudo science.
      Reply |
      • 2 3
        And Other Books - as far as I can gather - publish neither romance nor pseudo-science. Unfortunately, however, Kamila Shamsie's 'provocation' is directed at literary fiction - you might need your own campaign to get rid of romance novels and pseudoscience.
        Reply |
    • 2 3
      I guess time has come, sadly, for men to publish under a female pseudonym.
      Reply |
    • 3 4
      Oh great - one more place I can't get published.
      Reply |
    • 1 2
      She is also a reviewer and columnist – primarily for The Guardian
      Reply |
    • 3 4
      Flood:
      Tobler’s colleague Sophie Lewis, a senior editor at And Other Stories, said she expected the team would be “rescheduling male writers’ books for other years [and] digging harder and further than usual, in order to find the really good women’s writing that we want to publish” in 2018.
      So the year after they publish only female writers, then what? The men come flooding back onto their lists and we're back where we started? If And Other Stories wanted to put the money where their mouth was when it comes to equality, they would simply promise to publish an equal number of books by male and female writers each year. It's not a question of 'digging harder' (Virago seem to manage somehow)_ because it's an argument about numbers, not quality.
      Reply |
    • 2 3
      Academy of Science to ban all "crying female scientist."
      Reply |
    • 1 2
      Surely this is illegal?
      I'm going to go in there and demand they bake me a cake...
      Reply |
      • 1 2
        I'm pretty sure it isn't.
        I'm not an expert on employment law (I work in publishing, but not in editorial), but I'm pretty certain that signing a deal to publish an author is completely different to employing a worker.
        If it is illegal, Virago surely would have been closed down years ago.
        Reply |
      • 1 2
        I think a publisher set up with the purpose of promoting women's literature (Virago) is different from changing your criteria to discriminate against men, especially if you are funded by public money through the Arts Council.
        Reply |
      • 1 2
        As far as I'm aware, there are no legal regulations on what a publisher can or can't have as their 'criteria' for publishing.
        Your definitions don't really work - in essence Virago have the criterion of only publishing books by women in order to promote literature by women, while And Other Stories will temporarily have the criterion of only publishing books by women for one year in order to promote literature by women.
        Reply |
    • 4 5
      So now people have heard of And Other Stories. A blow well-struck in the interest of publicists everywhere.
      Reply |
      • 1 2
        It's been a pretty negative response. I suppose there's no such thing as bad publicity, but when it's a state-subsidised group, stunts like this just hurt wavering support for funding the arts.
        Reply |
    • 3 4
      Surprised at everyone's surprise and cries of discrimination. This press is only doing it for a year? Big deal. There are plenty of feminist presses who only published books by women for years, like Seattle's Seal Press, founded in 1976. I'm not sure if the same standard applies at Seal now, they are now part of the Perseus Book Group in the US.
      Reply |
      • 0 1
        The difference is that Seal has indeed been doing it forever because it's their program and their purpose; they didn't make that choice in a fit of pique or as an act of revenge or to make a statement.
        Reply |
    • 4 5
      I think this idea is interesting.
      I know a lot of women who get published; most of them are published by Small Press or are Indie and while it's great that this (and the previous article) is getting so much publicity, maybe we should show up the women in this country that are already getting published.
      Women don't just write Romance or Paranormal you know. We can be found in all genres, including some which tend to be considered Male Genres like Crime, Thrillers and Horror.
      Perhaps it's the Traditional Publishers, the BIG Publishers who need to look at what and who they are publishing and consider something other than their pockets for a change.
      If you're interested, there's already a yearly celebration of women's work in the Horror Genre... and it's into it's sixth year.
      Reply |
    • 1 2
      Hurray - I feel justified then - in only reading novels written by men.
      Reply |
    • 4 5
      Darwin at work; basing intelligence on gender in any way is a non-solution to human advancement. What this publisher has done is little more than a marketing ploy, to sell books. It's tawdry, cheap, and sexist.
      Reply |
    • 10 11
      The worrying thing about this, and other forms of "affirmative action" is that they are in essence collective punishment. You identify someone as a member of a group to which you assign them, and then say: "Because we assert that the members of this group have had it easy in the past, we are going to disadvantage you, not because of anything you yourself may or may or may not have done, but because of your assignment to membership of this group"
      Sounds familiar?
      Reply |
    • 6 7
      This is outrageous, intellectual apartheid has no place in the literary world.
      Reply |
    • 7 8
      What a ridiculous publicity stunt, but obviously successful. However, I just looked at their website, and at the bottom of their webpage it says they are supported by the Arts Council with Lottery Funding from which they have received "significant" funding as a member of the Arts Council Fiction Group. Has anyone queried the Arts Council about funding agencies that decide to adopt discriminatory practices?
      Reply |
    • 11 12
      This is extremely worrying news. I'd thought that Shamsie's pronouncement last week was the mere 'provocation' she presented it as - and a very wrong-headed provocation at that, one that indicated a terrible blindness about the genuine problems of representation that affect publishing. I didn't expect any publisher to act on it - mainly because it doesn't need to be acted on: the UK publishing industry turns out plenty of books by women, about women, for women . . . It's particularly depressing that such a great company as And Other Stories has been the one to take the plunge. If others follow, it's possible that Shamsie's foolish words, plainly foolish words, may do real damage to literature in this country.
      It's all so depressing because there really is an equality problem in UK publishing - but it isn't to do with gender. It's to do with class, it's to do with the fact that the industry is dominated by people from a very narrow, very privileged background (male and female; mainly female). The narrow taste of these people is pushed upon readers, clogs up bookshop shelves - we have to suffer for the choices they make, we have to suffer the taste of tasteless people who were grandfathered into their jobs. Publishing is a disgracefully nepotistic trade, a racket of internships, of rich people finding jobs for their rich friends' kids. It is chock full of mediocre, over-privileged people - and there's no shortage of women among them. This is what needs to be dealt with, torn down: the fact that publishing is so socially unrepresentative. Publishing more books by women is a stupid solution for a problem that doesn't exist. It will do nothing to address publishing's real, shameful problems.
      Reply |
      • 0 1
        "because there really is an equality problem in UK publishing - but it isn't to do with gender. It's to do with class"
        Goes way beyond just publishing. It's modern day mainstream culture - certainly based on what is written about / shown in the media (who also have the same issue).
        Reply |
      • 1 2
        It's all so depressing because there really is an equality problem in UK publishing - but it isn't to do with gender. It's to do with class, it's to do with the fact that the industry is dominated by people from a very narrow, very privileged background (male and female; mainly female).
        Absolutely. I had no class awareness until I started working in publishing. Up until that point I thought there were people who lived on council estates, people from my background, people who grew up with a car and holidays, and then the Royal family. Then I got into publishing and listened to someone on a six-figure salary who owns three houses ranting about losing child benefit.
        The industry is changing, though. It's happening slowly, but whilst it was hard to find somebody who didn't go to Oxbridge a decade or so ago, the clique of highly privileged hooray henries and henriettas have faced a constant assault from all sides and are now bunkered up as the walls come down.
        And once that happens we will move away, once and for all, from an industry where most of the future big authors met their future big agents at one Oxbridge mixer and those future big agents met the future big commissioning editors at another.
        Reply |
    • 7 8
      This will backfire on them.
      Is this what we want to actually encourage? Discrimination? We're going to solve our problems by discriminating more?
      Completely insane, fucking stupid.
      Reply |
    • 2 3
      Can't we just run each author's pedigree through some kind of algorithm that will then assign them a score that editors will use to decide if their books gets published or not?
      This algorithm will include race, gender, sexual orientation, wealth, and social context. Higher scores mean the author has struggled with more discrimination and prejudice in their society than those with lower scores.
      This is a complex algorithm because of the social context problem - for example, would a relatively wealthy Arab heterosexual woman living and writing in Paris face more or less discrimination than a poor gay white male living and writing in Moscow? Would there be very much difference in score between two wealthy white writers in London of different genders?
      Thinking about it this way, maybe the best option for authors is to self-publish and not get involved with publishers and their algorithms and biases at all?
      Reply |
    1 2 3 4 5
    SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
    SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
    desktop
    0%
    10%
    20%
    30%
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%
    90%
    100%