The place I most notice it is the Hugo nominations.
Pre-2010 its almost exclusively a White Male author club.
2010-2016 seemed to be a fairly decent balance.
2017 and later there's basically been no White Males. Scalzi seems to be "grandfathered in" somehow with a few of nominations, then Andy Weir and Kim Stanley Robinson with 1 each. Certainly no millennial or younger either, as the article discusses.
The old status quo was bad, but even I have to admit its over-corrected a bit.
The way I see it, I read sci-fi for different ways of looking at the world. I realized that I had stopped reading straight-white-male authors, not by design, but just because it always felt like I had read it before. Even the really "innovative" ones were innovating within a really narrow set of parameters.
I have no idea what criteria the Hugo nominators use. And it's certainly not up to me to yuck anybody else's yum. But I can say that I'm finding a lot to think about in books by authors who would likely be dismissed as "woke" based solely on their appearance.
The author is correct in many ways. Publishing seems like a textbook example of "the longhouse." But even if his ideal author wrote his ideal novel, would any of his peers read it? Almost every educated, polite, and competent man in my life is a total philistine. He won't open a book unless there's a dragon on the cover or a colon in the title. It's definitely a chicken and egg problem.
The last time I worked alongside men (and women) who enjoyed nuanced literature was in a call center, which seemed to attract many fellow wordcels with minimal career prospects.
as a WM novelist, my agent said it was hopeless, but she tried. it was. so I went indie, which she never even suggested doing. corporate trade publishing is not leading but following in every respect.
6 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 28.7 ms ] threadPre-2010 its almost exclusively a White Male author club.
2010-2016 seemed to be a fairly decent balance.
2017 and later there's basically been no White Males. Scalzi seems to be "grandfathered in" somehow with a few of nominations, then Andy Weir and Kim Stanley Robinson with 1 each. Certainly no millennial or younger either, as the article discusses.
The old status quo was bad, but even I have to admit its over-corrected a bit.
I have no idea what criteria the Hugo nominators use. And it's certainly not up to me to yuck anybody else's yum. But I can say that I'm finding a lot to think about in books by authors who would likely be dismissed as "woke" based solely on their appearance.
The last time I worked alongside men (and women) who enjoyed nuanced literature was in a call center, which seemed to attract many fellow wordcels with minimal career prospects.