Book reviewer quits over 'increasing sexist violence'
By Amy Willis
Published: 2:59PM GMT 25 Oct 2009 in The Telegraph UK.
The author claims she is is fed up with increasing levels of "sadistic misogyny" in crime fiction and says authors are simply jumping on the bandwagon to get a bestseller.
"Each psychopath is more sadistic than the last and his victims' sufferings are described in detail that becomes ever more explicit as young women are imprisoned, bound, eaten, starved, suffocated, stabbed, boiled or burned alive," she told the Observer.
Authors must be free to write and publishers to publish. But critics must be free to say when they have had enough. So however many more outpourings of sadistic misogyny are crammed on to the bandwagon, no more will be reviewed by me," she added.
And the most disturbing plots are by female authors, she says.
"The trend cannot be attributed to an anti-feminist backlash because the most inventive fiction of this kind is written by women," she claims.
Natasha Cooper, former chair of the Crime Writer' Association, agrees with Ms Mann. She says women do this so they are taken seriously as authors.
"There is a general feeling that women writers are less important than male writers and what can save and propel them on to the bestseller list is if they produce at least one novel with very graphic violence in it to establish their credibility and prove they are not girly," she said.
The British market for crime fiction is worth more than £116m a year, with almost 21 million books sold.
Women account for more than 60 per cent of the readership with females over 55 the most avid readers.
Published: 2:59PM GMT 25 Oct 2009 in The Telegraph UK.
The author claims she is is fed up with increasing levels of "sadistic misogyny" in crime fiction and says authors are simply jumping on the bandwagon to get a bestseller.
"Each psychopath is more sadistic than the last and his victims' sufferings are described in detail that becomes ever more explicit as young women are imprisoned, bound, eaten, starved, suffocated, stabbed, boiled or burned alive," she told the Observer.
Authors must be free to write and publishers to publish. But critics must be free to say when they have had enough. So however many more outpourings of sadistic misogyny are crammed on to the bandwagon, no more will be reviewed by me," she added.
And the most disturbing plots are by female authors, she says.
"The trend cannot be attributed to an anti-feminist backlash because the most inventive fiction of this kind is written by women," she claims.
Natasha Cooper, former chair of the Crime Writer' Association, agrees with Ms Mann. She says women do this so they are taken seriously as authors.
"There is a general feeling that women writers are less important than male writers and what can save and propel them on to the bestseller list is if they produce at least one novel with very graphic violence in it to establish their credibility and prove they are not girly," she said.
The British market for crime fiction is worth more than £116m a year, with almost 21 million books sold.
Women account for more than 60 per cent of the readership with females over 55 the most avid readers.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Benjamin Sobieck on -
You're right again, Mike. If I can censor you, you can censor me. It's better to not even go there, and allow both of us to write freely. As long as offensive expression is tolerated, no one goes to jail.
All this reminds me of a quote I loosely recall: "It's only repression when someone else does it to me. If I do it, it's out of moral duty."
-
Permalink Reply by minervaK on -
I'm not looking for someone to blame, and I'm certainly not looking to form some sort of Gestapo. I'm exercising my free right to say that I agree with Jessica Mann's opinion about the crime genre gorging itself on misogyny and violence against women. I say this as an avid reader of the genre. I'm not lobbying Congress to pass any laws.
I agree that nothing should be off-limits to writers. I'm not suggesting we all go out and write Politically Correct books so as not to damage the fragile sensibilities of our readers. What I am suggesting is that Jessica Mann has a right to refuse to help sell work that she finds objectionable, and I applaud her for doing so. This is not 'censorship.' This is freedom of expression.
MK
www.minervakoenig.com
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Carrick on -
Absolutely, Minerva. That's what I was trying to say. Writers have to be free to write without censorship, and readers have to be free to choose what they will read. In this way, the industry balances itself.
Ben & Jon, all of what you say is true. The moral high-ground can be a dark and dangerous place, and I don't care to travel there.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Loomis on -
Oh, God yes--of course she has a right not to review them. In fact she ought to have the right to eviscerate them--but I'm guessing that given the commercial symbiosis between publishers and big-time book reviews, that may be not an option her editor would find acceptable. A book reviewer should always tell the truth, even if the truth is "I advise you not to touch this piece of shit with a ten foot pole."
-
Permalink Reply by I. J. Parker on
-
Okay. Let's get this out of the way: I'm against censorship.
Now let's consider self-censorship. Is it truly necessary to the novel to dwell on extreme violence against men, women, children, cats, and dogs? Must we have have multiple rape-mutilations to make our point? How many live burnings of dogs and cats must be described to deal with a dangerous youth gang? And, finally: Are we choosing the subject and the graphic descriptions purely to ratchett up sales?
How many serial killer books that are bestsellers are actually "good" books and not just "good reads"?
My feeling is that most of those books are just sleaze.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Dennis on -
IJ, the answer is yes, it is truly necessary to the novel to dwell on multiple rape-mutilations and all other types of distasteful, ugly actions, if that's what the writer wants. As I said before, the reading public naturally has every right to reject this trash, which they have consistently done since the first time anyone tried to write about it.
And with the serial killer books, who's going to define "good". Answer: the reader, or even more to the point, the potential reader, before he or she buys the book. No one is disagreeing with you that a lot of serial killer stuff is sleaze, and that the really graphic stuff is just plain awful. But if someone wants to write that stuff, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Of course, if no one wants to read it, there's nothing the writer can do about that, either.
-
-
Unfortunately a lot of people want to read it and therefore the writer who writes this stuff finds a publisher who promotes him. It may not be that he wants to write this stuff. It may be that he writes it because it makes money. We have always had such writers. They come and they go. They work for the quick buck.
Of course, he has a right to write what he wants, but we don't need to admire him as a writer because he sells a lot of books.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Loomis on
-
How many serial killer books that are bestsellers are actually "good" books and not just "good reads"?
Depends on your understanding of what makes a "good book." If you're on board with the G.K. Chesterton model, as I am, then the correct answer would be "zero."
-
-
Well, my answer is "zero," but you may enlighten me about the G.K. Chesterton model.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Barone on -
I'm much more interested in less violent books with interesting characters than in the kind of books so many are nowadays--carried forward, not by character, but by violence.
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Carrick on
-
I'm with you, Joe. I can best describe my view using movies. When the world, my own friends and family included, were wild about Pulp Fiction because it was such a "trend setter", I watched it, but it made me feel like a bath was in order.
Like I.J. I am against censorship. I do agree, though, there is room to set a more tasteful trend. After all, the literary world belongs to us at this moment. We can shape it as we will.
If graphic elements are necessary to the story, I will employ them. I'll try to do so fearlessly, because I believe a good writer is a fearless one. Others may not like it, but that's the way I'll do it.
On the other hand, if they are merely gratuitous, I will continue to leave them out as I always have.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Dennis on
-
Right on every count, Donna. Write it the way you see it, and let the cards fall where they may.
About
© 2010 Created by Daniel Hatadi on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
