MFA novels prefer names like Ruth, Pete, Bobby, Charlotte, and Pearl
April 11, 2016 12:28 PM Subscribe
How Has the MFA Changed the Contemporary Novel? We wrote a program to analyze hundreds of works by authors with and without creative-writing degrees. The results were disappointing.
"We collected a sample of 200 novels written by graduates of MFA programs from over 20 leading programs (including Columbia, University of Texas at Austin, Iowa, and others) that have been published in the last 15 years. (This sample includes authors like Rick Moody, Alix Ohlin, and Ben Lerner.) For the sake of comparison, we also collected a similarly sized group of novels published over the same time period by authors who haven’t earned an MFA degree (including writers like Donna Tartt, Miranda July, and Akhil Sharma). To make these two groups as comparable as possible, we only gathered novels by non-MFA writers that were reviewed in The New York Times, which we took as a mark of literary excellence. Using a variety of tools from the field of computational text analysis, we studied how similar authors were across a range of literary aspects, including diction, style, theme, setting, and even how writers use characters.
Needless to say, novels consist of much more than just these features. What makes a single novel a great novel, what makes, say, Junot Diaz sound like Junot Diaz, is of course mostly immeasurable. But these features remain the fundamental building blocks of any novel, so if MFA writing were in aggregate to have some essential difference from books written by authors without MFAs, it should be perceptible at the very least at this genetic level of prose. There has to be something that makes them different, and those differences, according to the vigor and tenacity of critics’ claims, ought to be recognizable.""
(tl;dr: There was little or no difference.)
Previously: Junot Diaz on MFAs and POC; How Iowa Flattened Literature
"We collected a sample of 200 novels written by graduates of MFA programs from over 20 leading programs (including Columbia, University of Texas at Austin, Iowa, and others) that have been published in the last 15 years. (This sample includes authors like Rick Moody, Alix Ohlin, and Ben Lerner.) For the sake of comparison, we also collected a similarly sized group of novels published over the same time period by authors who haven’t earned an MFA degree (including writers like Donna Tartt, Miranda July, and Akhil Sharma). To make these two groups as comparable as possible, we only gathered novels by non-MFA writers that were reviewed in The New York Times, which we took as a mark of literary excellence. Using a variety of tools from the field of computational text analysis, we studied how similar authors were across a range of literary aspects, including diction, style, theme, setting, and even how writers use characters.
Needless to say, novels consist of much more than just these features. What makes a single novel a great novel, what makes, say, Junot Diaz sound like Junot Diaz, is of course mostly immeasurable. But these features remain the fundamental building blocks of any novel, so if MFA writing were in aggregate to have some essential difference from books written by authors without MFAs, it should be perceptible at the very least at this genetic level of prose. There has to be something that makes them different, and those differences, according to the vigor and tenacity of critics’ claims, ought to be recognizable.""
(tl;dr: There was little or no difference.)
Previously: Junot Diaz on MFAs and POC; How Iowa Flattened Literature
This was an interesting finding:
The percentage of male protagonists in novels written by MFA grads is well over half, at 61 percent, while that figure is 65 percent for non-MFA novels. Further, if a novel has a female lead, the chances that it has two strong female characters is only 32 percent for both MFA and non-MFA novels. Last, the percentage of novels that have a majority of male characters in the non-MFA group is 99 percent, whereas it is 96 percent for MFA novels. These are terrible numbers by any standard. They suggest that the contemporary American novel is disproportionately preoccupied with the experiences of men. And they suggest that the MFA novel is only barely better than its non-MFA counterparts. It’s possible that MFA writers have found more subtle ways to create strong female characters that go beyond simple numerical representation. But the raw numbers are damning: MFA writers are no better at representing women, and both groups are downright bad at it.posted by ourobouros at 12:42 PM on April 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
To make these two groups as comparable as possible, we only gathered novels by non-MFA writers that were reviewed in The New York Times, which we took as a mark of literary excellence.Wait... they took the cream of the crop of non-MFA writers, but compared it to the entire corpus of MFA writers?
posted by Etrigan at 12:52 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
but it means that the study says far more about what kinds of books the New York Times reviews than it says about the effect of an MFA program
This is what I came in here to say. I think only taking Times articles is a big problem and frankly a lazy choice. At the least, they could have pulled from a number of different small mags to get quality but more diversity.
posted by dame at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is what I came in here to say. I think only taking Times articles is a big problem and frankly a lazy choice. At the least, they could have pulled from a number of different small mags to get quality but more diversity.
posted by dame at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The findings on gender representation really help me understand why I have had so much trouble finding literary fiction that I want to read in the last few years. More and more, I've become bored with novels that are primarily about men. It's not that I find men's experiences boring, but just that I'm a bit tapped out there. It's gotten stale.
And it's really stunning when presented this way, because 1. everyone in the publishing and literary world knows that women are the majority of readers, and probably writers, too and 2. these MFA programs are not 96% men. So you have all these women in these programs writing primarily about male experiences, which is fascinating to me. Either women are entering their writing careers more interested in male experiences (because culture makes men's experiences so much more interesting?) or they are learning that that's what gets published.
posted by lunasol at 1:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
And it's really stunning when presented this way, because 1. everyone in the publishing and literary world knows that women are the majority of readers, and probably writers, too and 2. these MFA programs are not 96% men. So you have all these women in these programs writing primarily about male experiences, which is fascinating to me. Either women are entering their writing careers more interested in male experiences (because culture makes men's experiences so much more interesting?) or they are learning that that's what gets published.
posted by lunasol at 1:11 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
The results were disappointing.
This has by and large been my experience reading "contemporary" novels over the past decade. I was blaming it on myself, and on getting older, but now ... science!
posted by chavenet at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
This has by and large been my experience reading "contemporary" novels over the past decade. I was blaming it on myself, and on getting older, but now ... science!
posted by chavenet at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly, I get tired of all the MFA vs. non-MFA stuff that's been getting a lot of circulation lately and think it's a manifestation of anxiety over the more serious issue, which is the current dominance of a very narrow swath of voices in every genre of literature, nearly always upper-middle/upper-class in background. I was reading Dorothy Allison books from the '80s/'90s recently and marveling at how far from the average literary novel her work is and at how much vitality and originality it still has, and wondering whether it is even less likely now for people born in generational poverty to have the wherewithal to develop an artistic voice, let alone get published.
posted by thetortoise at 1:15 PM on April 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 1:15 PM on April 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
Using a process known as machine learning, we first taught a computer to recognize the words that are unique to each of our groups and then asked it to guess whether a novel (that it hasn’t seen before) was written by someone with an MFA. When we did this, the computer was successful only about 67 percent of the time at guessing correctly.
They downplay this result, but 67% is significantly better than chance. That suggests that there are real differences, even picking books from the NYT.
One might also argue that even non-MFA authors have been affected by the kinds of writing taught in MFA programs, i.e. the presence of these programs has an industry-wide effect.
posted by crazy with stars at 1:19 PM on April 11, 2016
They downplay this result, but 67% is significantly better than chance. That suggests that there are real differences, even picking books from the NYT.
One might also argue that even non-MFA authors have been affected by the kinds of writing taught in MFA programs, i.e. the presence of these programs has an industry-wide effect.
posted by crazy with stars at 1:19 PM on April 11, 2016
Shouldn't they have, at least, picked a selection criterion, and then looked at the correlation between "author has MFA" and "protagonist is named Marge"?
posted by mr vino at 1:21 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by mr vino at 1:21 PM on April 11, 2016
From the LRB: Keep your elbow in when you shoot:
But they start out with one hard fact. By analysing diction, the computer can distinguish MFA novels from non-MFA novels 67 per cent of the time. ‘You don’t need a degree in statistics,’ they write, ‘to know this isn’t very good – you can be right 50 per cent of the time just by guessing.’ For context, So and Piper say that their computer can detect mystery or romance novels 85 and 95 per cent of the time respectively. But I’m not sure how useful this context is. I can spot mystery and romance novels 100 per cent of the time by reading them; but I would never expect to be able tell unfailingly what kind of postgraduate education a writer had..posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:27 PM on April 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
I...think it's a manifestation of anxiety over the more serious issue, which is the current dominance of a very narrow swath of voices in every genre of literature, nearly always upper-middle/upper-class in background
Amen to that. What I do wonder is, are there any studies on what genres others than haut lit MFA grads end up writing for? Genuinely curious.
Myself, I have no dog is this fight but given the financial and temporal sacrifice, it would seem a better use of a would-be writer;s time to save the money and get a job with people wholly unlike those he or she has grown up with. Get one of those jobs that Americans won't do. Life experience, they used to call it. Join the navy, see the world, work with the working class (which latter are often far more interested, interesting, and sharp than the degreed people I know. Also brighter spirited, more fun loving.)
their computer can detect mystery or romance novels 85 and 95 per cent of the time respectively.
gun...blood...blond...cops...curvaceous.
heaving...pulsing...yearning...fluttering...auburn.
Color me unimpressed.
posted by IndigoJones at 1:34 PM on April 11, 2016
Amen to that. What I do wonder is, are there any studies on what genres others than haut lit MFA grads end up writing for? Genuinely curious.
Myself, I have no dog is this fight but given the financial and temporal sacrifice, it would seem a better use of a would-be writer;s time to save the money and get a job with people wholly unlike those he or she has grown up with. Get one of those jobs that Americans won't do. Life experience, they used to call it. Join the navy, see the world, work with the working class (which latter are often far more interested, interesting, and sharp than the degreed people I know. Also brighter spirited, more fun loving.)
their computer can detect mystery or romance novels 85 and 95 per cent of the time respectively.
gun...blood...blond...cops...curvaceous.
heaving...pulsing...yearning...fluttering...auburn.
Color me unimpressed.
posted by IndigoJones at 1:34 PM on April 11, 2016
Join the navy, see the world, work with the working class (which latter are often far more interested, interesting, and sharp than the degreed people I know. Also brighter spirited, more fun loving.)
Any other generalizations you want to throw out there, or are two vast ones enough to support your conclusions?
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Any other generalizations you want to throw out there, or are two vast ones enough to support your conclusions?
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:54 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
it would seem a better use of a would-be writer;s time to save the money and get a job with people wholly unlike those he or she has grown up with. Get one of those jobs that Americans won't do. Life experience, they used to call it. Join the navy, see the world, work with the working class
Unless of course the would-be writer isn't a US citizen, or serves in the navy, or maybe is even part of the working class.
posted by feral_goldfish at 1:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
Unless of course the would-be writer isn't a US citizen, or serves in the navy, or maybe is even part of the working class.
posted by feral_goldfish at 1:56 PM on April 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
oh, quit piling onto IndigoJones. I'd want to read the novel by the woman from "Common People" too
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:03 PM on April 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
it would seem a better use of a would-be writer;s time to save the money and get a job with people wholly unlike those he or she has grown up with
AFAICT, the whole point of an MFA is to make connections and get published (and promoted). Not surprisingly, it works. Look at how many well-promoted (being a subjective and hard to measure criteria, given) "literary" novels are written by MFAs. Well more than half.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:30 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
AFAICT, the whole point of an MFA is to make connections and get published (and promoted). Not surprisingly, it works. Look at how many well-promoted (being a subjective and hard to measure criteria, given) "literary" novels are written by MFAs. Well more than half.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:30 PM on April 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
We tried to figure out if there was a difference between MFA and non-MFA novel using this untested metric that we pulled out of our butts. We were unable to discern any differences, and we feel confident that this suggests that MFA programs are useless and no one should ever attend one, rather than that there might be a problem with our metric.
I mean, I'm currently enrolled in an MFA program, not a LOGIC course, but the NYTimes mostly reviews literary fiction. If all your metric has ever been able to do is discern between different types of genres, I'm not sure why you'd think it'd be able to discern the difference between literary fiction written by people with MFAs and literary fiction written by people without MFAs. Lord knows that actually reading books by people in these two categories, the common sense way of making such a judgment, would be way too much work and lack that critical 'STEM takes down the humanities!!!!!' clickbait street cred.
That said, I totally think MFAs are useless! Except for the ones that pay authors to write. Like, you know, the Michener Center, which is one of the fabled 7%, so the authors' snark seems profoundly unwarranted. Only apply to funded MFA programs, everybody. You don't need a computer program to tell you that.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 4:23 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, I'm currently enrolled in an MFA program, not a LOGIC course, but the NYTimes mostly reviews literary fiction. If all your metric has ever been able to do is discern between different types of genres, I'm not sure why you'd think it'd be able to discern the difference between literary fiction written by people with MFAs and literary fiction written by people without MFAs. Lord knows that actually reading books by people in these two categories, the common sense way of making such a judgment, would be way too much work and lack that critical 'STEM takes down the humanities!!!!!' clickbait street cred.
That said, I totally think MFAs are useless! Except for the ones that pay authors to write. Like, you know, the Michener Center, which is one of the fabled 7%, so the authors' snark seems profoundly unwarranted. Only apply to funded MFA programs, everybody. You don't need a computer program to tell you that.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 4:23 PM on April 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
pretentious illiterate: If all your metric has ever been able to do is discern between different types of genres, I'm not sure why you'd think it'd be able to discern the difference between literary fiction written by people with MFAs and literary fiction written by people without MFAs.
But literary fiction isn't supposed to be a genre. It's supposed to contain within it multitudes of different ways of expression and storytelling. The charge that the article lays at the feet of MFA programs is that they have served to homogenize literary fiction published in the United States into a single genre.
And the main problem identified by the article is the almost comically absurd gender imbalance in fiction. Goodness knows that the past has its problems in this regard, but at the very best it can be said that contemporary literature is no worse (I suspect it may in fact be worse, but I have nothing to go on but suspicion). "Not less sexist than medieval literature" (or the literatures of the 19th Century, or antiquity, or pre-modern China, or etc. etc.) shouldn't really be what modern fiction settles for. And that isn't to forget the racism in modern fiction. University programs that produce writers so uncritical of their field are failing readers, their students, and literature in general because so many of the people they educate go on to influence literature, whether they're writers, editors, critics or academics.
posted by Kattullus at 5:18 PM on April 11, 2016
But literary fiction isn't supposed to be a genre. It's supposed to contain within it multitudes of different ways of expression and storytelling. The charge that the article lays at the feet of MFA programs is that they have served to homogenize literary fiction published in the United States into a single genre.
And the main problem identified by the article is the almost comically absurd gender imbalance in fiction. Goodness knows that the past has its problems in this regard, but at the very best it can be said that contemporary literature is no worse (I suspect it may in fact be worse, but I have nothing to go on but suspicion). "Not less sexist than medieval literature" (or the literatures of the 19th Century, or antiquity, or pre-modern China, or etc. etc.) shouldn't really be what modern fiction settles for. And that isn't to forget the racism in modern fiction. University programs that produce writers so uncritical of their field are failing readers, their students, and literature in general because so many of the people they educate go on to influence literature, whether they're writers, editors, critics or academics.
posted by Kattullus at 5:18 PM on April 11, 2016
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that you don't need a degree to be an artist or writer. However, that doesn't say to me that you shouldn't get that degree. That says, if you're not interested in college, go do your thing. The education on it's own is enough for me to suggest if that's your aim, you should d o it. Yes I know all of the engineers feel I wasted my time in school, but oddly, I had a great time there and wouldn't trade it for a high dollar corporate gig. Not knocking that, it just ain't my thing.
posted by evilDoug at 7:58 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by evilDoug at 7:58 PM on April 11, 2016
*pats self on the back for not going to grad school*
Okay, now that that's out of the way...I can't help but think that there's no way 99% of writers are gonna pay off the MFA loans, and if it doesn't make you super stand out in that field, then what's the point? Hell, there's the occasional freaking teenager that can sell a book without even a high school degree.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:53 PM on April 11, 2016
Okay, now that that's out of the way...I can't help but think that there's no way 99% of writers are gonna pay off the MFA loans, and if it doesn't make you super stand out in that field, then what's the point? Hell, there's the occasional freaking teenager that can sell a book without even a high school degree.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:53 PM on April 11, 2016
Well, I guess the point is having the excuse to do nothing but writing as a "day job" for a few years. But beyond that....
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:53 PM on April 11, 2016
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:53 PM on April 11, 2016
Some context on the 65% number from a machine educator...
It's pretty common to take a problem, throw it into a random forest in the stupidest way possible, and end up with 80-90% precision. That's actually how the Microsoft Kinect was initially programmed: They just threw the data at a 'simple' machine learning algorithm and told it to learn what elbows look like, and it worked well enough to ship. After that initial foray, you tune and add features to your data, and maybe get into the 90-95% precision range.
This sort of experience is what's informing the author's dismissiveness for the 65% precision. Better than pure chance? Sure. But far, far from amazing.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:50 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's pretty common to take a problem, throw it into a random forest in the stupidest way possible, and end up with 80-90% precision. That's actually how the Microsoft Kinect was initially programmed: They just threw the data at a 'simple' machine learning algorithm and told it to learn what elbows look like, and it worked well enough to ship. After that initial foray, you tune and add features to your data, and maybe get into the 90-95% precision range.
This sort of experience is what's informing the author's dismissiveness for the 65% precision. Better than pure chance? Sure. But far, far from amazing.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:50 PM on April 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder how many of these people were at least partially motivated by being able to defer their undergraduate student loans and finance their current living expenses by going to grad school.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:04 PM on April 12, 2016
posted by Jacqueline at 7:04 PM on April 12, 2016
"these people"? heh ...
Why Writers Love to Hate the MFA
The findings on gender representation really help me understand why I have had so much trouble finding literary fiction that I want to read in the last few years. More and more, I've become bored with novels that are primarily about men. It's not that I find men's experiences boring, but just that I'm a bit tapped out there. It's gotten stale.
Hmm. I've had the opposite experience. I grew up, really until 10-12 years ago, ONLY reading male authors, aside from maybe Barbara Kingsolver, Joyce Carol Oates, and a few more. In the past few years, I've found a LOT of great women writers with strong female protagonists ... let me think here. ... most lately:
Get in Trouble - Kelly Link (MFA - UNC Greensboro)
Mislaid - Nell Zink (non MFA)
The Quick and the Dead - Joy Williams (a re-read - FABULOUS) (MFA - Iowa)
The Vegetarian - Han Kang (non MFA, though I think she teaches at one)
The First Bad Man - Miranda July (as mentioned, no MFA)
Anecdotal, but I think there's more and better writing about and by women than ever before. My2c.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:00 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why Writers Love to Hate the MFA
The findings on gender representation really help me understand why I have had so much trouble finding literary fiction that I want to read in the last few years. More and more, I've become bored with novels that are primarily about men. It's not that I find men's experiences boring, but just that I'm a bit tapped out there. It's gotten stale.
Hmm. I've had the opposite experience. I grew up, really until 10-12 years ago, ONLY reading male authors, aside from maybe Barbara Kingsolver, Joyce Carol Oates, and a few more. In the past few years, I've found a LOT of great women writers with strong female protagonists ... let me think here. ... most lately:
Get in Trouble - Kelly Link (MFA - UNC Greensboro)
Mislaid - Nell Zink (non MFA)
The Quick and the Dead - Joy Williams (a re-read - FABULOUS) (MFA - Iowa)
The Vegetarian - Han Kang (non MFA, though I think she teaches at one)
The First Bad Man - Miranda July (as mentioned, no MFA)
Anecdotal, but I think there's more and better writing about and by women than ever before. My2c.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:00 PM on April 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also:
MFA vs. CPU: Another MFA Article Misses the Bigger Picture
posted by mrgrimm at 10:00 PM on April 13, 2016
MFA vs. CPU: Another MFA Article Misses the Bigger Picture
posted by mrgrimm at 10:00 PM on April 13, 2016
Disclaimer: I don't have an MFA, nor have I ever been enrolled in any such program, but if anyone wants to be my patron, I would love to attend one. *blinks eyes, blows kisses*
posted by mrgrimm at 10:01 PM on April 13, 2016
posted by mrgrimm at 10:01 PM on April 13, 2016
I can't help but think that statistic about 96% of novels by MFA grads having a majority of male characters isn't just because women write about men; it's because the path from MFA grad to successful (or even kinda-successful) writer has an attrition rate that's harsher on women.
If you get a fiction MFA, you're probably pinning your hopes either on being able to live off your writing, or being able to get a teaching gig that will give you a living wage and some amount of time that you can devote to writing. If you come out of an MFA program with a book deal, it's still not a guarantee of anything, but it's a good start in the right direction. If you don't, you almost certainly won't be able to get a full-time teaching job -- so maybe you'll be adjuncting for three different colleges at once, maybe you'll be doing whatever job you can find as a day job and trying to write in the time you have left over. So, if you're a woman, you're facing not only whatever pre-existing bias there is in the publishing industry, but also very possibly the time crunch of being a primary caregiver; if Laurence the MFA grad comes home from his day job, does some minimal chores and child-care, and then shuts himself in his office for a couple hours, he gets a lot more slack than if Laura the MFA grad does the same thing. A woman (confronting imposter syndrome, internalized sexism, etc) may tell herself, "Look, my MFA thesis didn't get published, maybe I'm no good at this, how can I be so selfish as to waste my time on this when there are dishes in the sink and a toddler whimpering at the door?" -- and if she never finishes that book, the possibility of an academic career that would have left her a little bit more flexibility to find time to write is closed forever.
I say this because I've heard a lot of "Oh, lots of people finish their MFA and never go on to write anything else," with an edge of contempt for those wannabes -- maybe from people who imagine someone who don't imagine the obstacles in the way of someone trying to write, and raise a child, and hold down a job.
(Full disclosure: I'm starting an MFA this year. Despite all the kind and thoughtful advice telling me not to. It's fully funded, though, so it's not like I'm going into debt for it.)
posted by Jeanne at 2:16 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you get a fiction MFA, you're probably pinning your hopes either on being able to live off your writing, or being able to get a teaching gig that will give you a living wage and some amount of time that you can devote to writing. If you come out of an MFA program with a book deal, it's still not a guarantee of anything, but it's a good start in the right direction. If you don't, you almost certainly won't be able to get a full-time teaching job -- so maybe you'll be adjuncting for three different colleges at once, maybe you'll be doing whatever job you can find as a day job and trying to write in the time you have left over. So, if you're a woman, you're facing not only whatever pre-existing bias there is in the publishing industry, but also very possibly the time crunch of being a primary caregiver; if Laurence the MFA grad comes home from his day job, does some minimal chores and child-care, and then shuts himself in his office for a couple hours, he gets a lot more slack than if Laura the MFA grad does the same thing. A woman (confronting imposter syndrome, internalized sexism, etc) may tell herself, "Look, my MFA thesis didn't get published, maybe I'm no good at this, how can I be so selfish as to waste my time on this when there are dishes in the sink and a toddler whimpering at the door?" -- and if she never finishes that book, the possibility of an academic career that would have left her a little bit more flexibility to find time to write is closed forever.
I say this because I've heard a lot of "Oh, lots of people finish their MFA and never go on to write anything else," with an edge of contempt for those wannabes -- maybe from people who imagine someone who don't imagine the obstacles in the way of someone trying to write, and raise a child, and hold down a job.
(Full disclosure: I'm starting an MFA this year. Despite all the kind and thoughtful advice telling me not to. It's fully funded, though, so it's not like I'm going into debt for it.)
posted by Jeanne at 2:16 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jeanne: I can't help but think that statistic about 96% of novels by MFA grads having a majority of male characters isn't just because women write about men; it's because the path from MFA grad to successful (or even kinda-successful) writer has an attrition rate that's harsher on women.
Oh, absolutely. And not only is it more difficult for women to get published, it's doubly so for women writing about women. They have to get through two sexism gates. First, it's that weird idea that women can only speak to women, that only men can deal in universals. It's one of those maddening patterns that you find in anything from the Catholic Church to sports coverage. The second is that men won't be interested in the lives, inner or outer, of women. Which, you know, is true up to the point that there are lots of sexists out there, but not to the point that many cultural gatekeepers believe (witness the bottom-line-harming levels of sexism that went into not releasing merchandise featuring the protagonist of the latest Star Wars film, who is a woman). A first-time novel focused on a protagonist who's a woman, written by a female author, will have a very steep hill to climb.
posted by Kattullus at 4:55 PM on April 14, 2016
Oh, absolutely. And not only is it more difficult for women to get published, it's doubly so for women writing about women. They have to get through two sexism gates. First, it's that weird idea that women can only speak to women, that only men can deal in universals. It's one of those maddening patterns that you find in anything from the Catholic Church to sports coverage. The second is that men won't be interested in the lives, inner or outer, of women. Which, you know, is true up to the point that there are lots of sexists out there, but not to the point that many cultural gatekeepers believe (witness the bottom-line-harming levels of sexism that went into not releasing merchandise featuring the protagonist of the latest Star Wars film, who is a woman). A first-time novel focused on a protagonist who's a woman, written by a female author, will have a very steep hill to climb.
posted by Kattullus at 4:55 PM on April 14, 2016
« Older Therapy and defiance of planting: make gardens and... | Rusting Rainbow Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Jeanne at 12:38 PM on April 11, 2016 [10 favorites]