.
| Hearsay: |
Ongoing at Bookninja is an argument in the comments of the post right below this one about whether publishing, and especially the term “chicklit”, are sexist. One of the many streams flowing through this discussion is the idea that men don’t really read. Orpah, in all her bookish wisdom, is trying to change that. A bit. Moby stumbled on to the “Books Men Want” pages at Orpah’s media empire and does a bit of analysis to answer the question: What is it men want? Sports and guns? I think I can answer that without any analysis at all, but rather by resorting to a little rural Ontario linguistic razzle dazzle: “tail”. Men want tail. Case closed. So how do we translate tail into books? Apparently we don’t. There are only three pages on Orpah’s site. And sexism still rules the day, even there.
As we all know, the question, “What do men want?” is thought to be much easier to answer than is the same question of women. Nowhere, apparently, is this more true than in the book section where, it appears, men don’t want much.
Each of the books selected by Oprah has its own page. After clicking through three pages, I found that I was being directed to other features. I tried this several times, thinking that I must have made a mistake, but, after all, it seems that only three pages are needed for the Books Men Want: Open, by Andre Agassi; True Compass, by Edward M. Kennedy; and Where Men Win Glory, by Jon Krakauer.
For men, by men, about men.
66.6 % of the titles have to do with an athlete. Zero percent, it almost goes without saying, are fiction. All are biographies of public, accomplished men, although the subject of Krakauer’s book, Pat Tillman, the professional football player turned soldier, was not so well-known until he was killed in the war in Afghanistan.
If anybody knows who’s reading what, it’s got to be Oprah and her crew (Sara Nelson must have a pretty good idea, herself). After all, Oprah regularly decides just what that will be –- for millions of people. A feature like Books Men Want, I have to think, must be close to the mark. On such anecdotal evidence as this, then, it looks as though uncoupling gender stereotypes from reading is a lost cause.
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
November 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Yeah mostly men want more tail and more gravy. My pals have learned from experience that there is likely not much for them in a novel, particularly a Canadian one. It’s sad because there are books, novels, short stories, poetry that would connect with that audience, but they are lost in the crowd. I’m currently reading the very compelling “Tree of Smoke” whoch stinks of guylit,but then I got it from a remainder pile.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I wonder if certain novelists — Jim Harrison and Thomas McGuane spring to mind — would be more successful if either (a) their writing was less “masculine” or (b) more men read fiction.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Why do men have to read more fiction? Why don’t women have to read more nonfiction? And, besides a handful of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century historical writers who had a vested interest in promoting the masculinity of their own preferred literary form, what is the basis for this splitting of the genders (women read/men don’t) claim? Just because William Godwin wanted history to be masculine doesn’t make it so, nor does that justify the assumption that whatever men are doing when they look at books of nonfiction, it’s not reading in the true sense of the world (which involves “suspended disbelief” or some such).
Am I the only one who gets the sense that underpinning these discussions is some undisclosed opinion that good reading only occurs when the subject of one’s gaze is longish fictive narrative? That if you don’t read novels as often as you read other books, you’re a lesser species of reader? I’m sure my writer friends who specialize in the short story would be irritated with the notion that novels are the best kind of books. How much of our preoccupation with novels (which are apparently “dying”, according to Philip Roth) is responsible for perpetuating this empty debate about men’s “failure” to read?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Given this trenchant analysis of what “men” want to read, I’m now forced to wonder what, precisely, this fleshy stalk is between my legs. Because clearly it’s not a penis; were that the case I’d be lining up to buy the memoirs of tennis players and American politicians. Allegedly.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I started reading in high school because chicks dug it. Seriously, my friends would get in the back seat and have no response when she would ask “what are you thinking.” I quickly prepared myself by reading. I wanted to know what people were saying, so that I could have a response.
Plus, I always liked telling stories. I guess I am a verbal guy.
Anyway, I guys tend to be rooted in actuality more than women. I initially wrote that men are more rooted in reality, but that sounded to offensive. My thought here is that women are more comfortable getting lost in thoughts and dreams; whereas, men typically want to see real life. The application of this principle is that women want to read fiction; they want to find the story that reflects a universally shared experience. On the other hand, men want to learn about a scenario they can imagine themselves in. This might be fiction, but is more likely non-fiction because of the reality of the subject. Personally, I am drawn to creative non-fiction; I tend to blur the lines between reality and imagination. I love Tim O’Brien.
For a list of manly reads or to post any suggestions for manly reads, check out the XY Reading List: [see link above]
November 16th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Yikes! Could this article have been more off the mark? I don’t think so. Curious that Oprah came out with the list, as opposed to say Men’s Health or something along those lines.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Oh, goodness. You poor men, patronized not by an article written to tell them what to want, but by an article accurately and clearly titled “Books Men Want: Biographies That Make Great Gifts.”
Golly gee whiz – why isn’t there any fiction on this list of biographies? Why does it seem designed so that busy, Christmas shopping females can find something they’ve only vaguely read about (”Do you guys have that new Agassi book?”) on Oprah 2.0? Why is it followed by a link to the “Gifts for Him – Gift Finder” that also advertises iPods and other gadgets? I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the Sears Wishbook offers NHL underpants in size grownup at this time of year.
I’m sure it’s because women readers are more invested in make-believe.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Sarah,
I’m curious how you make that leap of logic involving short stories. Surely, if men tend not to read fiction, this means that they tend not to read both novels and short stories. Why, then, is concern over this somehow related to the novel, and evidence of disrespect for the short story?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Andrew -
I suppose that I didn’t draw that one out very well. My point is that the spurious idea that novel reading is a higher form of reading denigrates not only non-fiction (which now has the obfuscating modifier “creative” occasionally attached to it) but also dismisses short works of fiction that this and other literary blogs have noted get short-shrift when it comes to audiences and publicity.