Female writers dominated 2017's literary bestsellers, figures show | The Guardian

theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/17/margaret-atwood-female-writers-dominated-2017s-literary-bestsellers-figures-show

>Flying in the face of Norman Mailer’s infamous comment that “a good novelist can do without everything but the remnant of his balls”, Haruki Murakami was the sole male writer to make the Top 10 bestselling literary authors of 2017 in the UK.

>The Bookseller’s analysis of literary fiction book sales last year found that Margaret Atwood was the bestselling literary novelist of the year, with television adaptations of her novels The Handmaid’s Tale and Alias Grace pushing her sales up to almost £2.8m.

>Sarah Perry, author of the award-winning The Essex Serpent, came in second with sales of around £1.6m. Helen Dunmore, who died last June but had a novel, The Birdcage Walk, and poetry collection, Inside the Wave, published in 2017, came in third, with sales of around £1.1m. The rest of the top five were Naomi Alderman, whose novel The Power won the Women’s prize for fiction, and Italian author Elena Ferrante, author of the acclaimed Neapolitan series.

>Murakami, with sales of around £1m, came sixth, with the list completed by Ali Smith, Zadie Smith, Maggie O’Farrell and Arundhati Roy.

>The Bookseller’s Tom Tivnan admitted that the analysts were “making somewhat arbitrary value judgments about what is ‘literary’, and have limited ourselves to those who have been major award winners and/or shortlistees”. But he pointed out that both Julian Barnes and Ian McEwan failed to make the Top 10, each bringing in sales worth £855,000, along with the new Nobel literature laureate Kazuo Ishiguro, whose books made just over £709,000 in 2017.

>In June 2015, the acclaimed novelist Kamila Shamsie made a bold call to the books industry, asking it to “redress the inequality” of the literary scene, and commit to making 2018 the year of publishing women. Pointing to everything from the imbalance in the gender of authors submitted to major literary prizes, to the greater space male writers receive in literary publications, to “the gendered decisions about how to package and describe male versus female authors”, Shamsie wrote in the Guardian at the time: “Enough. Across the board, enough”.

>Speaking on Wednesday, after just one publisher, the independent press And Other Stories, answered her call to publish only women in 2018, Shamsie said: “The list of writers on [the Bookseller’s] list is a reminder that literary fiction’s most beloved women writers are second to no one in terms of the quality of their work.”

>Female writers dominated

stopped reading there

M*les BTFO

And yet no women has produced a great work of literature in the past 100 years, furthering proving the flood of average iq women over the mediocre men will never create the pinnacles of mastery that few men in history held. The genetic characteristics of women hold them back, in measurable intelligence, and motivation/passion behind the creation of great art, a string of traits and circumstances that the female does not possess, no matter how much civilisation and society reform itself to produce these great individual's within the chosen sex. We are not yet able to tackle the first obstacle(although close) but the second may never be achieved

but literally none of these authors are literary.

>Flying in the face of Norman Mailer’s infamous comment that “a good novelist can do without everything but the remnant of his balls”, Haruki Murakami was the sole male writer to make the Top 10 bestselling literary authors of 2017 in the UK.

Holy fuck are they implying that Haruki Murakami doesn't have balls?

>Female writers dominated 2017's literary bestsellers, figures show


"Despite women writers’ strong performance in literary fiction, they take up less than half of the slots in the Bookseller’s overall UK Top 50 bestselling authors of 2017. That list was topped by David Walliams for the first time, with just three women writers making the Top 10"

>just three women writers making the Top 10

One of those authors was J.K. Rowling for The Cursed Child, and Fiona Watt for a well received children's series.

Isnt it...isnt it because their works are being published in a far higher number than males works? Just asking

kek

I'm confused. The top 5 on the Bookseller's list were women and they want to address this imbalance by increasing the number of women? The quality of the books is judged on how well they sold? I realise 50 shades isn't classed as "literary fiction" but it sold better than any of those. Isn't judging literary fiction by sales figures alone just finding the work of the broadest appeal, the lowest common denominator?

Female identitarians and their fucking inferiority complexes. They're fostering a cultural climate wherein people just tune out women by default because it's all (perceived to be) the same vagina-centered pleading for unearned validation. The blowback to all of this shit is gonna be so damn ugly.

This, and also because women read more.

to be fair, I've always affected an utter lack of concern for women regardless of the cultural climate. I'm not saying that no women has ever been a prodigious writer/academic/whatever just by and large it serves as a constructive rule to live by.

Huh? Where does it say that the literary fiction that sold most was the best literary fiction?

Margaret Atwood has a distractingly sharp face.

...actually, I guess you mean the ending quote. That's just a silly little sound byte.

/pol/ is getting destroyed lmao
Women are equal, time to accept it.

>numale kikes and feminist legbeards monopolize publishing
>"BREAKING NEWS: FEMALES WRITERS DOMINATE SALES"

How surreal

You can refrain from reading anything ever written by a woman and you wouldn't miss much.

Can someone explain to me why all women are capable of making that expression in the OP? Natalie Portman did it at the globes and I've seen pictures of Hillary doing it. But I don't think I've ever seen a man do it
>legbeards
heh, haven't heard that one before

The recent transfer of social power from men to women is maintained only by the labor of men. As it screws more and more of us, there's going to be a serious kickback. this just isn't sustainable.

Please elaborate, or I'll dismiss this as some /r9k/ shit.

Women are inherently better at the vast majority of post-industrial labor. This necessitates a transfer in power to them so they can occupy these roles. This power is taken from men and is primarily over men. Men are also the ones that provide the labor which allows for such a system to exist. Men are essentially tasked with maintaining a system of gender relations which fundamentally screws most of them, and I don't know how long it can laast.

And this would entail what exactly? Going back to an industrial economy? Because service economies are the result of factors other than muh feminist boogeyman.

>Because service economies are the result of factors other than muh feminist boogeyman
Other way around. I'm saying that the service economy has been a major influence (if not the primary one) on the current shape of feminism. It's also not a boogeyman when it happens to be a real political movement with a real, stated agenda. I guess you could assert that it id a broad movement encompassing many different viewpoints, but it doesn't mean much when all of them are horrible.

As for a solution, I've got nothing.

Anyone read any Arundhati Roy? I wanna give her a try.

>women read more.
Are men too dumb to appreciate literature?

Christina Stead -- The Men Who Loved Women
Clarice Lispector -- The Hour of the Star, the Complete Stories
Can Xue -- Five Spice Street
Virginia Woolf -- The Waves, To the Lighthouse, Mrs. Dalloway

>Other way around
I'm an idiot.

But you say women are better than men at these jobs, so based on merit it's the natural order, no?

>But you say women are better than men at these jobs, so based on merit it's the natural order, no?
Personally, I'm not an advocate of systems based on either of those principles, but you are correct. The problem is that it isn't sustainable. Personally, I think that the increased influence of women is bad for the culture as a whole, but it's besides the point.

men read Moby Dick, women read the entire harry potter series and some random stephen king book

Quite the opposite. Men prioritise quality over quantity

You have to consider the inherent cost of putting women into those jobs, which is lower rates of childbirth, lower rates of marriage, lower rates of happiness, and so on. Also consider the effect on large numbers of men, which is to drop out of a society that is no longer suitable for them. For various reasons a working male / non-working female society is more stable than a non-working male / working female society.

Now that women dominate maybe they will stop telling me I need to read more non males.

>sales up to almost £2.8m.

Imagine celebrating the best selling lit author making less than a moderately successful youtuber

Anne Carson is fucking god tier my dude, her brain is fucking huge and she is an aesthete.

You know what's worse, Atwood is only receiving a part of that $2.8M, probably around 15-20%.

And this is a author heavily subsidized by multiple educational systems that requires every pupil to purchase her books.

Fucking Christ being a author must be depressing.

>all the butthurt m*les itt
Face it honeys, us girls are simply better at writing.

>Who is Virginia Woolf

lmao that smol Geobbels at the bottom