TheNSW Writers’ Centre run brilliant courses for writers throughout the year.Writers can attend workshops, publishing seminars and festivals. Manyopportunities exist for writers to become part of an inspired writing community.
Ifyou are a reader this could be the perfect opportunity for you.
Allyou need to do is read a novel, aplay, a collection of poems or a short story by an Australian author and submityour review.
So, get readingand write your review.
The latest statisticsreleased by VIDA: Women in Literary Arts reveal disturbing figures. Genderdiscrimination in the literary arts has been hotly debated since VIDA releasedtheir 2010 figures. This year VIDA looked at the number of male reviewers aswell as the number of male authors reviewed. The figures were dismal. Men weredominant in all 14 literary journals surveyed.
It is surprising thatthis is the case given that women drive the publishing industry. It seems atthe final stages of publishing when the book is released, the men still havethe power to decide the fate of a book.
Sarah L’Estrangeinterviewed three literary editors to see if the situation in Australiareflected VIDA’s statistics. Jason Stegar from The Age and Susan Wyndham fromThe Sydney Morning Herald agreed that their regular reviewers are split 50/50,but overall men are dominant both as reviewers and as the authors of booksreviewed. When Wyndham looked through the past six issues of the Sydney MorningHerald’s literary pages she was shocked to find the bias towards men. Both Stegar and Wyndham agreed that there was no deliberate leaning towards men although Wyndhamsuggested she was more inclined to send a male reviewer a book by a male author.Stegar claimed he reviews the books worthy of review regardless of the genderof the author.
Stephen Romei from The Australian saysthe fault lies with the women reviewers. The men are more likely to be vigorousin their pursuit of securing a review with The Australian. Romei regularlyreceives more pitches from male reviewers. Perhaps persistence is the answer.If you are a female reviewer Stephen Romei awaits your phone call.
With the gender biasdebate in full force once again I went to have a look at the New Frontier listfor 2012. As a publisher I don’t strive particularly for a 50/50 split. Ipublish the best manuscripts that come across my desk.
This year we willpublish ten new books, eight penned by women, two by men. There was no grandplan to give women the numbers this year; it is simply the way it turned out.
VIDA claim that eventhough the numbers are still dismal the gender bias is slowly changing. Thediscussion will no doubt continue.
Ammon Shea 
recently spent a year of his life reading the OED from start to finish. Over the next few months he will be posting weekly blogs about the insights, gems, and thoughts on language that came from this experience. His book, Reading the OED, has been published by Perigee, so go check it out in your local bookstore. In the post below Ammon reflects on an article he saw in The New York Times Book Review.
Last Sunday, in the New York Times, I read a book reviewer taking an author to task for her word use. The reviewer stated that “the last time I checked the American Heritage Dictionary, in spite of how computer trade journalists might choose to use the word, “architect” was not recognized as a verb”.
First, putting aside the obvious slander against computer trade journalists (who themselves would likely not claim to be arbiters of what is recognized in language), are there perhaps some other sources that might recognize “architect” as a verb? Surprisingly enough, there are - both the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster’s Third International list “architect” as a verb.
The OED provides citations from as far back as 1813, quoting a letter from Keats, in which he writes “This was architected thus By the great Oceanus.” The OED also specifies that the word, in addition to being used as a verb, is used in a figurative and transferred sense. Perhaps those computer trade journalists were engaging their poetic whimsy and quoting this early nineteenth century versifier.
Webster’s Third does not provide dates for their citation (“the book is not well architected”), but it is from the Times Literary Supplement, and so perhaps the aforementioned computer trade journalists were simply imitating the writing style of some other, more lofty and intellectual publication.
It is always a little bit risky to make a claim that something is not a word, or not used thusly, or has never been a certain part of speech. First, there is simply the possibility that you are wrong. But also, if you spend enough time looking through dictionaries you are just as likely as not to find one or two which contradict whatever position you’ve so boldly staked out. Of course, the flip side of this is that if someone states that you are wrong on the meaning of a word, you can usually find some source that will back up your position.
I’ll bet that the hordes of angry computer trade journalists who read that comment are right now sharpening their pens and rifling through their dictionaries, searching about for the perfect vicious rejoinder to refute this review.
ShareThis
I encourage other commenters to listen to that interview very interesting.
What was concerning was Jason Stegar's response that he wouldn't do anything different. He claims that they judge the book by its content and seems to be unaware that there are implicit bias that will shape how he and other editors judge worthy content.
It certainly makes for interesting listening. Three very different points of view.