Interesting. And what you hear all the time is that far more women buy books than men and that women writers should have an easier time selling their books to publishers.

I do think the difference could be in subject. Women are no slouches at it, but more men write books on history, politics and technology, which dominate non-fiction bestseller lists. On fiction, it's a bit murkier. I think the difference might be that in fiction, women writers go for more "personal" stories and men go for more of the sweeping stuff that seems to speak to history and culture and will stand the test of time as "literature".

I'm not saying that's true - just that I think more personal stories (including memoir) tend to get seen as being less significant than, say, novels that try to digest a whole swath of history or some such. Me, I'm with the feminists who say "the personal is political."

Institutionalized sexism which still exists in the U.S. is to blame. How to fix it? One brick at a time. Disamantling the old boy network that keeps women living as second class citizens in more ways than one.

Congratulations., Otherwise, very interesting. Perhaps the women writers have to be more kick-ass? Not saying that you are, but...just sayin'

Let's fix this right here: Read
Kim Echlin, The Disappeared
Margaret Atwood, The Year of the Flood
Kate Pullinger, The Mistress of Nothing
Nicole Brossard, Fences in Breathing
Alice Munro, Too Much Happiness

It's sexism, definitely, but very hard to tease out. I doubt the people who compile these lists set out to discriminate against women deliberately. That's the confounded thing about all this personally political stuff.

We'll be running a post about this on WOMEN = BOOKS, the blog for the *Women's Review of Books* next week, starting on December 7. (Here's the link for the blog: http://www.wcwonline.org/wrbblog). Sorry for what may seem like shameless promotion, but I'm glad to see people talking about this.

i was surprised not to see margaret atwood and alice munro on the three-way list. i could have sworn i'd seen margaret on two, so i'm not sure who left her off, or why.

silk, i think the subjects may be a big part of it. hopefully we'll see more essays by people who know much more about the particulars, because i'm only guessing. this is far from my area of expertise, but i'm interested in learning.

martha, i look forward to that post. post it here for sure, and send me a link.

Dave, how thrilling that COLUMBINE is on all three lists! Your ten years of work are paying off better than many a stock investment. Very satisfying.

As for the devaluing of women, it's been going on forever, hasn't it? Generally speaking, women have babies, men have power. That seems to be the unspoken trade-off. But still, as a woman writer, I wonder whether the explanation for the 3 lists this year is that women didn't write good enough books or that men don't want to share the spotlight. And which would be worse? Guess I'll withdraw to the wings and work on my book...

Dave, I'm not trying to hijack your blog, but as a Wellelsley alum I want to post the specific address for the women's review of books that Martha mentions.
http://www.wcwonline.org/content/view/373/38/

thanks for the link, hawley.

and yes, discovering that just 11 people made the three lists and i was one of them was quite possibly the coolest news i've gotten this year. (aside from the call where we were booked solid on a certain tv show last spring. hahaha.)

i knew about the three lists individually, but never put it together.

i know that LargeHeartedBoy keeps track of all the book lists with links to them all, but i don't think he (or anyone that i know of) makes sort of a master list of lists, like the village voice does for music or several places do for films.

First, congratulations to you! Well deserved, I might add. As for the rest of the books and the fact that no women were listed... I agree, I think subject matter and maybe the fact that male "judges" were prevalent. I don't know, since I have no idea who was doing the judging, but it does seem a little strange.

That's interesting because as you point out a lot of the writers are women, and it has been that way for some time. Whenever, I go to the bookstore, it seems that women dominated the new release section.

here's the largeheartedboy link that tracks all the lists:
http://www.largeheartedboy.com/blog/archive/2009/11/2009_yearend_on.html

PW responded to their controversy by pointing out that the staff that chose their list was mostly composed of women. i don't know about the NYT or Amazon judges.

I also forgot to say congrats on how many kudos you are getting on lists like this! Well deserved and I know how hard you worked to get here.

Wow. Congrats, Dave.
R

First, let me offer my sincere congratulations Dave, what a grand way to end the year, it's like the triple crown of books! I was so disappointed when Oprah pulled your segment, mostly because I knew what a boost in sales her exposure would have been, but if this is your cosmic consolation prize, not bad.

Secondly I want to tell you how impressive it is that you have noted the glaring lack of women writers on these lists and are asking how is this possible. There are many answers to why this may be, hell go back to Victorian times when so many women disguised their names to get published. When was the last time a man answered with the name of a female author when asked the perennial question; read any good books lately?

The aversion to reading women writers is likely inculcated from an early age, as these things so often are. How many men have missed out by not reading Isabel Allende? Or Alice Munro? Or countless others, equally worthy but dismissed out of hand because they have been conditioned to assume that a women's work will be infused with an overwhelming femaleness rather than a more general tone of humanity.

This subtle prejudice is pervasive throughout our culture and the arts are rife with it.. Look at the paucity of female film directors, or screen writers for that matter. When was the last time you saw a female symphony conductor? I bet that if you surveyed the work of living artists whose work was actually regularly selling most of them would be men too. Cooking? Just try to get a spot "on the line" or as Chef de Cuisine in a decent restaurant when you're a woman. Unless you want to be a pastry chef you'll be hitting your head against a wall. If you're lucky enough to get hired your co workers may see to it that you don't last long on the job.

It's so pernicious. And when you work your heart out over something, whether it's a beautiful novel or a fabulous reduction sauce, it sucks that you will struggle to attain even a percentage of the rewards and recognition that a similarly skilled man will often be given as a matter of course.

I'd like to believe that "things" are changing. But sometimes it seems like women are awfully quick on the draw when they, rightly or wrongly, perceive a threat from one of their own. It's disconcerting to see the cattiness of Jr. High School evolve into grown up back stabbing and career sabotage. And even the ones who don't grow to turning on each other are so often battle scarred from their decades of battles, battles that their male equals have not had to fight, that they are often bitter and resigned to the near futility of realizing their full potential, so they recede and we are all the less for this.

Sorry, shouldn't have gone on so long, but you asked.

First, glad to see Columbine is doing so well. Second, we've noticed the same lopsided ratios in New Yorker magazine every month as well as most of the yearly anthologies. I can only conclude that lifting all those heavy words and sentences requires superior upper body strength.

Dave,
I still think Francine Prose's article, The Scent of a Woman's Ink, sums up some of the best arguments. Her argument is that when you hide the name of whether a man or woman is writing, it's difficult to tell them apart. So "literary fiction" and "domestic drama" are assigned genre after the fact of knowing who is a boy or a girl. It's just easier for a critic to read something about family drama, for example, and see it being "brave" for a man to write like that, whereas women are just expected to do it. Some thoughts. I'd wish it were different, but if you think about books like "The Corrections", why did Franzen garner the kind of praise that I'm willing to bet a woman would not have gotten?
Dave, having said all this? YOU DESERVE EVERYTHING YOU ARE GETTING. YOUR BOOK IS AMAZING.

thanks. these comments are enlightening. i think ablonde had particularly useful points. damn, it is incredible who women are still marginalized in so many of the arts.

that seems kind of counter-intuitive on several levels: work that requires emotional intelligence, and an artistic community which sees itself as the infinitely more open-minded and anti-discriminatory than the rest of the population. hmmmm.

Laura wrote a smart post about this recently.

BUT: Jesus, Dave, bask in the glory. It's unbelievably great to make all three lists.

Kerry, Laura Miller's piece was great. I somehow missed it during the controversy. Damn. She really dealt with both sides of it quite honestly.

I think the question is less about any given group of judges picking too many men in any one year, and more about the systemic biases that are causing that to happen year after year. I will read the Prose piece, too. Here's the link:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/1998/06/0059591

And I am enjoying the bask. It made for quite the refreshing weekend.

Congrats. The lists don't make much sense since most fiction is by women/for women.

Dave, you are giving women their due right here, and I appreciate it. xox

I have been thinking more about this and wondering how much role the media plays throughout the year in trumpeting the big books. (I'm talking about publicity TV rather than reviews here.)

I'm thinking of Larry King, Today, 60 Minutes, Charlie Rose, Oprah.

With the exception of that last one, I see a lot of men. (Does Charlie Rose allow women into his set?)

I think these shows play a big role in setting the agenda.

I wrote a post on Nov. 6th "Ten Great Books of the Year By Women" in response to PW's all-male list. It's funny--it was the only one of my posts since I started here a few months ago that didn't get one comment. There are so many great books by males (and congrats on your book making the list!), but there are just as many by women--I don't know why they don't get as much recognition.

Oh no, not another "No women" controversy. I'm a woman writer, but the way I write -- hmmm, women have given me the best reviews of my life, men the worst. So I guess it's a matter of taste ...

Who makes up the selection committees? That's what I REALLY want to know. Are they mostly men?

(And, by the way, I couldn't be happier for your success . . . )

Dave, your comments make sense and it does boggle the mind that no woman writer's work was named to the list. But I'm certainly glad "Columbine" is receiving the recognition it deserves, it's my favorite of what I read this year. Happy Holidays!

thanks for all the nice words.

it's been nice seeing lots of women make the nyt top ten, and my favorite list, salon's. (disclaimer on that: yes, i'm on salon's which is an unexpected thrill, but they have always been my #1 list):

http://salon.com/entertainment/best_of_2009/index.html?story=/books/laura_miller/2009/12/08/best_fiction

http://salon.com/books/laura_miller/2009/12/07/best_nonfiction/index.html

Sexism? You didn't provide any examples of what should have been on the list. Are there any worthy contenders that you feel were unjustifiably left off the list? If so the next question to ask is why it didn't make the list.

Until you've answered those a blanket claim of sexism is rather knee jerk.

rob, you might want to consider identifying the "you" you are addressing. there are a lot of people here. and i can't see where i used the word.

thanks, peter. sorry to be last on your list, but just glad to be on it. haha.