Years ago I attended a James Joyce conference in Dublin where I met the famous American literary critic who had been one of the judges of the National Book Awards a few years before. He was a fine story teller and I remember him telling us that one of his fellow judges (perhaps Walker Percy) "Wanted to give the award to Miz Welty" and he said, "Miz Welty" with deep contempt. "Miz Welty." This celebrated critic bragged he'd drunk the other judge under the table and was able to drive to John Barth's house that night with the news that he'd bagged the award for him. This happened in 1972. I had hoped that things have changed. But of course we know when a man writes a nice book about his first love or masturbating into a piece of liver it's a literary "coming of age" novel. If a woman writes a similar book it's dismissed as "chick lit" or worse a "romance novel."

Since I work as an editor for several small to mid-size houses and have friends and colleagues in editorial positions at some of the bigger houses I have to say that the bottom line is the bottom line. As far as I can tell from my small perch the decision to publish a book these days is based almost solely on the marketability of a book.

And that factor is influenced not just by simply persuading the buying public but by the fact that there are fewer and fewer independent bookstores, and that large distributors such as Amazon and even Wal-Mart are influencing what gets published and into the marketplace. Not to mention the demise of newspapers, reviewers, etc. And to top it off we add in the little problem of the economy these days. It's a complex problem that has resulted in this rather obnoxious list.

I'm surprised that women in this position are not aware of what's going on in their own profession and wouldn't use this opportunity to make a much more powerful statement about books, authors, and who gets out there and why. And they didn't think there would be a response to this?

That's why I'm excited about SheWrites. It's encouraging to see so many talented intelligent women connecting and speaking up about writing from the start of the creative process to the finish. I have to send a big booooo to the PW ladies for not using their position to do right.

Kind of makes you wonder what happened in the room (if it was a group effort) when it became clear that all Top Ten Books for the year were written by men. Did the members of the selection committee shrug and say, "Oh, well, these are our favorites. Tough luck." Did they glance around at each other say, "Oh, shit, we're really in for it now?" Or did they think, "Wow, this is provocative. Bring it on!" Because how much attention outside of the publishing industry did PW really get before this came along?

It's astounding that the criteria of PW's selection committee, whether women or not, came down to -- and I quote from the email -- "ended up with books that we loved." Kinda like buying a dress for the prom?
LB

I've had a mixed response to this controversy. On the one hand, it seems clearly absurd to me that so few writers (even on the list of 100) were women, and that out of the top 10 books only 1 was written by anything other than a white man. How can one even comment on that except to say that it confirms some of our worst fears about inherent cultural bias and privilege? I deeply wish this list had reflected more voices and experiences, and to be honest, I even more so wish that the publishing industry as a whole pigeon-holed women writers (and writers of color or from other countries/cultures) less, without expecting us to write either chick-lit, quiet domestic books, or, in the case of non-white writers, something "exotic" where the corporate publisher can use a marketing campaign singularly emphasizing the trendy foreign-ness of the writer--I mean, really, the whole thing is a huge problem, and the fact is that literary publishing is still very biased towards a white, male experience as the "norm," and any other experience as the "other."

That said, as an editor myself, and of course an avid reader as we all are, I do blanche a bit at calling individual people harshly to task for what they loved most in a given year. I'm in a bit of a quandary about it. I wish the list were different, but what I don't wish is that these editors had "faked it" because they were afraid of a backlash for their white-boy-heavy list, and pretended to love books by women or writers of color because they thought they "had to." Reading is such a subjective experience, and on some level I do believe these particular individuals on the panel had the right to love what they loved, and not have to pretend otherwise or defend themselves for it.

Louisa's email here is condescending and not particularly well-written, which is a bummer. Her tone (and spelling) doesn't make me want to rush to her defense. And yet I do also feel a need to defend a woman's right to prefer a book--or 10--written by male authors if it is truly where her heart is at for whatever reason. I hesitate to make this one PW list the poster-child for what is really a far broader cultural/literary issue of continued marginalization of women . . . and yet it IS a symptom of that larger problem. It's both a symptom and an individual, subjective choice, and is both wrong and yet "not wrong" simultaneously.

I really appreciate She Writes' attention to this issue. It's giving me a lot to think about and wrestle with, as are other forums debating this list. And I just bought Margaret Atwood's Year of the Flood, a writer who can stand toe-to-toe with the best writers living/working today, on any list anywhere.

As a proofreader, I am horrified that Ermelino misspells "categories" twice! Not a good sign.

Clear as mud. And I did an informal count on the top 100 and it looks about 70% male. Hmmm. Perhaps part of the problem is with the publishers themselves? If the books written by women are not getting published they can't get on the list now can they?

It makes sense, yes and no. They were the ones who chose this year to name the Top Ten, so it's lame to then say, "But oh look at the other 90...." That's the 'no', where Ermelino doesn't make sense. Where she does is is in claiming that the top ten were a product of group-think. Clearly, that group have a similar fascination for stories that speak to the male experience.