![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Realms of Fantasy just announced that they're going to do a special issue, all written by women writers, occasionally also referred to as "ladies" and "girls" in the call. Now given the heat that they've gotten for the endless series of chainmail bikini (or less) clad babes on the covers, it's not too hard to draw the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that this issue is a response to those criticisms. Or perhaps they're trying to tap into the traditionally predominantly female readership of the magazine. Or maybe even right a few wrongs that the sf genre as a whole is legendary for. Whatever their rationale, I'm for it (though I think the actual submission call is in desperate need of help) as long as the writing's good and here's why.
Science fiction and fantasy markets are not, in fact, a level playing field, and pretending that it is otherwise is naive. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, The Mammoth Book of Mindboggling Science Fiction, the Hugo Awards and far, far too many anthologies and magazines and awards to count are male-dominated and/or exclusively a boy's club. The most recognizable names in the genre are male. If you survey an average reader fan at an average con (i.e. not WisCon) on what they read, you get a list that generally includes Jordan, Heinlein, Asimov, maybe Stephenson, Gaiman - in short, the usual bestselling suspects. They may have read a single book or story by Le Guin or Macaffrey or Norton or Willis, but that's often the extent of it. There are exceptions to this, of course, particularly if they also read female-dominated sections of the genre like paranormals and/or YA, but it is a mind-bogglingly common phenom in general. The only two sf writers of color that fan is likely to be able to name are Butler and Delany. Maybe Barnes, largely due to his work with Niven. Does that fan set out to read almost entirely white, male authors? Maybe, maybe not, but this is the mainstream of the field and what is most familiar so it gets reviewed the most and rewarded with the most exposure. Check out the bestseller lists and the reviews in say, Locus, for examples.
I've already seen distressed comments here and there to the effect that male writers write some of the best women characters. Sometimes this is true (I've certainly got my favorites), sometimes this is akin to the dog walking on its hind legs phenomenon (it's remarkable not that it does it well, but that it does it all). Crossover is perennially popular for writing the "Other" in sf/f - men writing female characters, women writing gay male characters, heterosexual writers writing GLBT characters, temporarily able-bodied writers creating characters with disabilities, white writers writing characters of color. In fact, mainstream writers 'crossing over' often get an automatic boost in reviews and buzz, a boost that actual members of the "Other" groups writing about themselves don't see. Why? Combination of a whole bunch of factors including, but not limited to: it's seen as more of a challenge to do it well and the fact that the writing will be closer to mainstream comfort level with those groups (i.e. the characters are generally less pissed off about civil rights and equal pay and discrimination and such). So your average white male writer will get more buzz for writing a female character than the equivalent female writer. Bonus points if the character's multiracial, bisexual and has a rocket-powered wheelchair (and I do want to read this one done well, regardless of authorship).
I can also recall many of the same distressed comments about the Dark Matter anthologies (which focused on the work of African American/African diasporic writers) and just about any other market I can think of that focused on the writings by any specific group. It's okay to focus on characters who are Jewish or lesbian or some other group, but not okay if it's limited to writers from that particular group. Interesting, but I'm not buying it. In reality, there is nothing stopping a writer from writing the best "Other" they can and trying to get that work published elsewhere. Having the occasional market that acknowledges that not everyone gets the same access or opportunities will not in fact decimate anyone else's career.
Is one special issue of a magazine going to make a huge difference? Probably not, particularly given how problematic the existing call is and that RoF isn't exactly F&Sf or Analog and has a better gender balance to begin with. But it may give some readers an opportunity to read some female writers that they otherwise would not have discovered. And it may get some worthwhile discussion going about why there aren't more women being published in other venues in the field.
Edited to add: some statistics on the matter, courtesy of Susan U. Linville. Strange Horizons.
I might add that her numbers are supported by personal research; I was on the Nebula short fiction jury circa 2004 and spent a lot of time during and since looking at the big markets. The numbers have shifted a bit, but it's hardly a 50/50 split. Analog, for the record, has been better about publishing new writers in general, presumably regardless of authorial gender, than some of the other mags.
Science fiction and fantasy markets are not, in fact, a level playing field, and pretending that it is otherwise is naive. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, The Mammoth Book of Mindboggling Science Fiction, the Hugo Awards and far, far too many anthologies and magazines and awards to count are male-dominated and/or exclusively a boy's club. The most recognizable names in the genre are male. If you survey an average reader fan at an average con (i.e. not WisCon) on what they read, you get a list that generally includes Jordan, Heinlein, Asimov, maybe Stephenson, Gaiman - in short, the usual bestselling suspects. They may have read a single book or story by Le Guin or Macaffrey or Norton or Willis, but that's often the extent of it. There are exceptions to this, of course, particularly if they also read female-dominated sections of the genre like paranormals and/or YA, but it is a mind-bogglingly common phenom in general. The only two sf writers of color that fan is likely to be able to name are Butler and Delany. Maybe Barnes, largely due to his work with Niven. Does that fan set out to read almost entirely white, male authors? Maybe, maybe not, but this is the mainstream of the field and what is most familiar so it gets reviewed the most and rewarded with the most exposure. Check out the bestseller lists and the reviews in say, Locus, for examples.
I've already seen distressed comments here and there to the effect that male writers write some of the best women characters. Sometimes this is true (I've certainly got my favorites), sometimes this is akin to the dog walking on its hind legs phenomenon (it's remarkable not that it does it well, but that it does it all). Crossover is perennially popular for writing the "Other" in sf/f - men writing female characters, women writing gay male characters, heterosexual writers writing GLBT characters, temporarily able-bodied writers creating characters with disabilities, white writers writing characters of color. In fact, mainstream writers 'crossing over' often get an automatic boost in reviews and buzz, a boost that actual members of the "Other" groups writing about themselves don't see. Why? Combination of a whole bunch of factors including, but not limited to: it's seen as more of a challenge to do it well and the fact that the writing will be closer to mainstream comfort level with those groups (i.e. the characters are generally less pissed off about civil rights and equal pay and discrimination and such). So your average white male writer will get more buzz for writing a female character than the equivalent female writer. Bonus points if the character's multiracial, bisexual and has a rocket-powered wheelchair (and I do want to read this one done well, regardless of authorship).
I can also recall many of the same distressed comments about the Dark Matter anthologies (which focused on the work of African American/African diasporic writers) and just about any other market I can think of that focused on the writings by any specific group. It's okay to focus on characters who are Jewish or lesbian or some other group, but not okay if it's limited to writers from that particular group. Interesting, but I'm not buying it. In reality, there is nothing stopping a writer from writing the best "Other" they can and trying to get that work published elsewhere. Having the occasional market that acknowledges that not everyone gets the same access or opportunities will not in fact decimate anyone else's career.
Is one special issue of a magazine going to make a huge difference? Probably not, particularly given how problematic the existing call is and that RoF isn't exactly F&Sf or Analog and has a better gender balance to begin with. But it may give some readers an opportunity to read some female writers that they otherwise would not have discovered. And it may get some worthwhile discussion going about why there aren't more women being published in other venues in the field.
Edited to add: some statistics on the matter, courtesy of Susan U. Linville. Strange Horizons.
I might add that her numbers are supported by personal research; I was on the Nebula short fiction jury circa 2004 and spent a lot of time during and since looking at the big markets. The numbers have shifted a bit, but it's hardly a 50/50 split. Analog, for the record, has been better about publishing new writers in general, presumably regardless of authorial gender, than some of the other mags.