Do Women Really Dominate the Fiction Industry? REALLY?

If you take a look around the writing or book blogosphere, it seems that quite a number of us are ladies. I can count the number of boys I know who blog about writing/books on one hand. And a quick look at statistics, men apparently account for only 20% of the fiction market.

But do women REALLY dominate the fiction industry?

This same article also says:

"Unlike the gods of the literary establishment who remain predominately male—both as writers and critics—their humble readers are overwhelmingly female."

To me, that does not sound like ladies dominate the industry. In this post, I'll point out three different phenomena that refute the idea men have less power in fiction.

Note: In this blog post, I will primarily discuss the differences between men and women in the fiction industry. However, please don't take this to be erasure of intersex or genderqueer people or anyone at all. More than anyone, your voices have been ignored and need to be heard.

1. "Women's fiction"

Another note: books of this genre per se are fabulous and I mean absolutely zero criticism towards them in my argument.

So I don't write women's fiction, and therefore cannot be trusted to provide an accurate definition. Wikipedia says:

Women's fiction is an umbrella term for women centered books that focus on women's life experience that are marketed to female readers, and includes many mainstream novels.

Sounds reasonable so far! (so far.) So, how does it differ from men's fiction? Wait, what do you mean, that doesn't exist?

Personally, I find the argument that men are underrepresented in media or as consumers quite unconvincing when there's an unequal gender divide in how books are marketed towards different genders. This has been discussed wonderfully by Jessica and Vlora and probably many other people, and the bottom line? To quote Jessica:

How many times have you heard something along the lines of “Boys may like The Hunger Games, even if it is about a girl“? Why is it so taboo for boys to read about girls?

Why is it that we have to label "women's fiction" on purpose? Doesn't it, in some way, imply that "men's fiction" is basically all other fiction? 

Psst, I'm like totally not the first person to spot this. If you don't trust my takeout, the Guardian said it too.

2. Mary Sues.

Let's think of a few random professionals. (No, bear with me.) Actors, salesmen, waiters, chairmen ... all mankind has denoted males to be the default. But, Alyssa, you say, that's how the language evolved. We're not sexist anymore!

Why are Mary Sues female by default? Why are idealised and ridiculously powerful women seen as badly written characters? Come on, the term is mostly used for teen fanfic writers, who are probably not experts in all things writing.

And as the linked example above says, Spiderman and Batman are idealised as well. Those franchises are still around.

Even when we speak of Canon Sues, the women are singled out more. Bella Swan. Anastasia Steele. I mean, would someone please point out that Christian Grey fairly Sue-ish too? He is so idealised. He doesn't even do any work for his own company, but hasn't gone bankrupt. He's like Donald Trump, but worse.

3. Homme de Plume (an excellent pun I stole)

This is the last point I'll have (but definitely not the last point that exists), and I also think it's the most powerful. For those who thought my linking around was not good enough proof, let me give you some stats.

An author, Catherine Nichols, was querying agents. Out of 50 queries, she had two manuscript requests. Now, rejection's a necessary part of being an author, but then Catherine tried this scheme (which she herself called dishonest, but I call necessary for science, because that's how I roll) where she sent it out under a man's name.

"George Leyer" aka Catherine had 17 manuscript requests out of 50 queries. In other words, George aka Catherine wrote the same book 8.5 times better than Catherine as herself.

Another interesting fact from the article: Catherine's rejections praised her beautiful writing. Yay! But George's rejection praised his work for being clever and well-constructed, not the aesthetic of his words. What, like women don't write clever and well-constructed and beautiful words?

This isn't a matter of blaming literary agents or industry professionals or anyone. The fact remains that there is unconscious bias against women, and just because we happen to be the many in this industry, doesn't mean we are the more powerful.

So, my answer to whether women dominate the fiction industry? No.

So, do you agree with me? Why or why not? Also, thoughts on the new blog layout?

Hey, you might not know this, but I send exclusive monthly content to my takeout army. Join us now to receive monthly letters of more feminism + magic, madness, and murder!

Twitter-sized takeout:

• Do women REALLY dominate the fiction industry? @AlyssaC_HK says no. (Click to Tweet)
• 3 Phenomena That Refute the Idea Women Dominate Fiction (Click to Tweet)

Bookish Takeout [3]: What Book Titles Do You Like?

This post has been rewritten and will soon have a new home!

In the meantime, read the comments and join my takeout army of book lovers and bloggers!

Bookish Takeout [2]: Should we give a series a second chance?

This post has been rewritten and will have a new home soon.

In the meantime, why not join this book merch giveaway (open INT'L)?

Bookish Takeout [1]: Print Books Are Not Dying

Bookish Takeout is an original blog feature on The Devil Orders Takeout, featuring book hauls, to-read books, upcoming releases, and all sorts of bookish love!


I'm a bookworm. Unfortunately, I'm also a poor bookworm, so I go to two places for books: Amazon Kindle, and the Book Depository. eBooks are often cheaper, but most of my books are print books.

In my twelve years of reading books, no eBook has left me with as strong an impression as a good print book. I will love them, yes, but I won't fangirl over them as much. And often, it's simply because of a different medium. In the grand narrative of the print book vs eBook debate, here's why I stand by print books:

1. Print books give me pressure simply because of their physical presence.

It's extremely difficult to ignore the steadily accumulating books on my shelf. Since joining the TBR Smash Challenge, I've read four physical TBR books and zero eBooks. The books just compel me to read them when they're scattered next to my bed for bedtime reading. A Kindle conserves space, but that same virtue becomes a curse when I forget completely about it.

And I rarely DNF print books. Out of the 80+ books on my shelf, I have 2 DNF books. On my Kindle, I'm still halfway through three of the eight eBooks. When print books remind me of their presence all the time, I'm more likely to neglect my Kindle and let its battery dwindle away.

And to be honest, I've only ever reread one eBook, The Book Thief, which was one of my favourite books of all time. Whereas I reread print books all the time. Case in point:

I have bookmarked my favourite passages in A Clash of Kings — about 30 in all — so I can read them over and over again. While Kindles do allow you to bookmark places, you can't randomly flip through a book and stumble upon a forgotten passage you can fall in love with again. Rereading is one of my fav pastimes because these sprints are what elicit the most fangirl squees.

2. Less skimming, more absorbing the book through sheer willpower.

Don't you ever have the urge to just press your face to the page as you read and absorb all the bookish goodness through diffusion and sheer willpower? Because I do that. All the time. We tend to skim more on a screen than on paper. Don't just take my word for it; the Washington Post explains how print medium lets us "slow down, savor and think".

Experiment carried out by your resident takeout devil—pick up a double-sided sheet of paper: your homework, a notice, whatever. Read the first page in 15 seconds and turn it over. How ridiculous do you feel? Typically, a page has 250 words, so you're reading 16 words per second. But most people spend only 15 seconds on a web page. The guilt-trip from flipping physical pages quickly is much greater than just scrolling or tapping on your Kindle.

3. C'mon, books.

The feel of page corners giving under your fingers, the rough edges as you grip the pages, the smell of paper and ink, the stain of tea from multitasking — reading print books is a truly thrilling experience that eBooks have yet to replicate fully.

Don't get me wrong, there are many benefits of eBooks.

I mean, any form of the written word is a blessing. And eBooks are cheaper, you can get them instantly, and they've opened up ways for self-published and indie authors to reach an audience. But don't give up on print books. If you can, buy the print version,

Takeout: do not discount the power of a print book.

Are print books more powerful? Do you prefer print or electronic books? Comment below!

I'm such a hypocrite, typing all this out. I'll even ask you to tweet:

• Here's why @AlyssaC_HK stands by print books and not eBooks. (Click to Tweet)
• .AlyssaC_HK pledges to read the printed word. (Click to Tweet)

If you love books, subscribe here for bonus readerly takeout right in your inbox!