Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Prof. Lisa Jardine: 'Men Prefer Fiction About Alienation And Violence.' So What?

By maynard in Media
Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 01:37:30 PM EST
Tags: Books (all tags)
Books

Recently, Charlotte Higgins, the arts correspondent of The Guardian, reported on the results of an Orange Prize for Fiction commissioned study by Professor Lisa Jardine and Annie Watkins where, according to the article, they interviewed: '500 men, many of whom had some professional connection with literature, about the novels that had changed their lives.' According to Professor Jardine, who was quoted in the article: "We were completely taken aback by the results," and was paraphrased by the reporter as saying: 'that they revealed a pattern verging on a gender cliché, with women citing emotional, more domestic works, and men novels about social dislocation and solitary struggle.' An interesting result even if, in a minor discrepancy, the Orange Prize Press Release on the study states that the researchers had interviewed '... 400 men from the worlds of academia, arts, publishing and literary criticism ...' and not 500. But what do her reported results mean, if anything at all?


The Orange Prize for Fiction was founded in 1996 to provide an outlet for female authors who had been '... passed over ...' out of concern for apparent literary discrimination by 'many of the biggest literary prizes [that] often appeared to over look wonderful writing by women.' Their goal is, through a literary prize, to help female authors find an audience among male and female readers. The Orange prize is privately sponsored by British telecom Orange, who publicizes their concern for social responsibility with numerous prizes and endowments.

Prior to this in 2004, Professor Jardine and had conducted a similar study of watershed fiction for women. According to the press release, in that study she also interviewed '400 women from the worlds of academia, arts, publishing and literary criticism [that] took part in the Orange Prize project including many previous judges of the Orange Prize.' who were each asked to select a title as their 'watershed book.' The books that made the top five watershed works for those women interviewed were such titles as 1) Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte; 2) Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte; 3) The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood; 4) Middlemarch by George Eliot; 5) Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Primarily works which feature strong women overcoming societal limitations or relationship troubles to find solace through epiphany and catharsis.

With this second study complete, Professor Jardine offers certain contrasts between the types of books that men select compared with those the women had selected in her prior research. According to her the results show a highly divergent set of tastes, with '... almost no overlap ...' in the choice between genders. Whereas, according to Professor Jardine as quoted in the press release, the men: "... we interviewed had a tendency towards identifying themselves with angst-ridden books showing intellectual struggle, violence, personal vulnerability, catastrophe and the struggle to rise above circumstance ..." in comparison, according to The Guardian article, the women: '... readers used much-loved books to support them through difficult times and emotional turbulence, and tended to employ them as metaphorical guides to behaviour, or as support and inspiration.'

Further, according to her, men appear to lose interest in fiction once they enter early adulthood. Jardine, as quoted in the Guardian article, was surprised "... by the firmness with which many men said that fiction didn't speak to them ..." and when they did read fiction they 'preferred books by dead white men' with only Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird appearing on the list of top 20 female authors selected by men. She offered historian David Starkey's words who said, presumably about whether fiction provides a means of support or inspiration within his life, that: "... fiction, of any sort, has never worked on me like that ...". Jardine, summing up her results for The Guardian, was quoted saying: "On the whole, men between the ages of 20 and 50 do not read fiction." One of her study participants, leader of the British Conservative Party, couldn't even offer up any fiction which had inspired him lifelong, instead referring to Robert Graves's first world war memoir Goodbye to All.

When men do read literary work they select vastly different titles than women for their five most important novels: 1) The Outsider by Albert Camus; 2) Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger; 3) Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut; 4) One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez; 5) The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. Why is this? According to Professor Jardine, as quoted in the Guardian article, she found that: "... men do not regard books as a constant companion to their life's journey, as consolers or guides, as women do, [instead they] read novels a bit like they read photography manuals." To her: "The men's list was all angst and Orwell. Sort of puberty reading ..." Which suggests to Professor Jardine that the literary profession '... is run by the wrong people ...' Further saying: "What I find extraordinary is the hold the male cultural establishment has over book prizes like the Booker, for instance, and in deciding what is the best. This is completely at odds with their lack of interest in fiction." Which is in stark contrast to her affiliated Orange Prize for Fiction, which honors only female writers.

What is a male reader to think of her statements? That men prefer different work than women seems an unextraordinary statement. Looking outside the insular world of the literary establishment shows a wide divergence between the tastes of men and women. Genre fiction, for example, is written and published primarily to attract a gender and demographic specific audience. Presumably the publishers of such material have conducted numerous market research analyses and know their buyers' habits better than do the buyers themselves. In the pulp fiction market, men tend to prefer spy and adventure, detective, and science fiction novels primarily, whereas women prefer romance, contemporary period, and mystery novels. Filmmakers understand and exploit this gender cleave as well, often naming categories of film shoehorned for men Guy Movies while those primarily for women Chick Flicks. Why should it surprise a University professor that such gender specific tastes in popular entertainment mirror the haughty world of literary fiction?

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of Professor Jardine's statements, from a male perspective, is the apparent bias implied by such condescending statements as that male readers preferred 'all angst and Orwell' and that this was 'puberty reading' for a gender that only read novels like 'photography manuals'. Are these really the statements of a University Professor? How is she to know the internal reasons why the men she interviewed stated the preferences they did? Her words read more like pop-psychology from the likes of Oparah Winfrey than true academic discourse.

Assuming her study results are valid, and not meaningless due to selection bias or -- for the cynical among us -- simply a means to present her predetermined results to justify the worthiness of the Orange Prize for Fiction, there are two underlying questions she doesn't even attempt to answer. The first: have men as a population truly stopped reading novels, or do they simply consider it entertainment and not 'a constant companion to their life's journey' as Jardine's statements seem to imply were asked. The second: is fiction about angst, violence, disenfranchisement, and solitary struggle truly not literary, as she seems to assert. Implied within her words is a value judgment about what is and what is not important for literary work. If one untangles the underlying assumptions of her words, Nobel Prize winning authors such as Albert Camus and Gabriel Garcia Marquez do not write literature. She seemingly claims it is not literary to write about violence or solitary struggle because such topics do not support readers through 'emotional turbulence' or do not seemingly provide a 'life companion' between their covers for readers. Yet are these subjects not important to men? Have men not waged war, fought intransigent and unemotional bureaucracies, pursued the singular prize of a woman, or sailed vast uncharted oceans with but a small crew to accompany them across the spans of history? Is this not the plight of man? Who is she to say such topics -- these things that men experience -- are not worthy of literary measure?

Or, perhaps, there's another explanation for why men aren't reading contemporary literary fiction. Suppose, instead, that there is a dearth of serious modern authors who speak for men, and this is the reason male readers have fled recent literary work. If so, might this be due to University level Creative Writing departments that do not nurture male voices about male issues because to do so seemingly violates the current norms of what is and what is not literary among the establishment; such material being verboten. If so, do Professor Jardine's results show a lack of interest among men because men don't enjoy reading, or because men don't enjoy reading the material she -- and the literary establishment she represents -- hoists upon us and terms: literature?

Or maybe Camus and Marquez and Salinger et all simply suck. And perhaps she's right, men don't read because they prefer the solace of 'photography manuals.' Right.

-------

Text Copyright ©2006 J. Maynard Gelinas.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. Commmercial electronic duplication by Kuro5hin.org and/or its legal entity permitted.

An archived and updated copy of So Men Prefer Fiction About Alienation And Violence. Is That Bad? available at daduh.org

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o The Guardian
o Orange Prize for Fiction
o study
o Professor Lisa Jardine
o Annie Watkins
o Orange Prize Press Release
o outlet
o literary discrimination
o Orange
o social responsibility
o similar study
o Genre fiction
o market research analyses
o Guy Movies
o Chick Flicks
o Nobel Prize
o Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License
o So Men Prefer Fiction About Alienation And Violence. Is That Bad?
o daduh.org
o Also by maynard


Display: Sort:
Prof. Lisa Jardine: 'Men Prefer Fiction About Alienation And Violence.' So What? | 277 comments (243 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden)
It's interesting (2.93 / 15) (#2)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:55:22 PM EST

That she sees struggle and angst as lacking emotional.

-Soc
I drank what?


this is why titanic was such a high grossing movie (2.70 / 17) (#5)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:08:19 PM EST

the first 1.5 hours was pure woman's movie: sentimental mushy romance conquers classism

the second 1.5 hours was pure man's movie: everybody dies horribly

sure, you can have success with movies that appeal strongly to only women (dirty dancing), or only men (lethal weapon), but you can't ignore what men find appealing versus what women find appealing and expect success, nor can you try to mix up your attractions (romance and violence) in noncomplementary ways, or you wind up with something that appeals to no one

wait...

this story is about books? what?

people still read?

how quaint!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

So basically... (2.76 / 17) (#6)
by Wouter Coene on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:13:36 PM EST

So basically she's saying she doesn't like "male" fiction.

Well duh, as she herself pointed out males and females apparently have different tastes regarding their fiction. And she's a female. Doesn't take anybody with an academic degree to figure out her problem.

Her disparaging comments are simply because she has this strange notion that she is somehow superior. Not uncommon for a product of the misandric radical post-feminist community.

Best thing is probably to ignore her.

What I do find shocking is that the Orange Prize is apparently exclusively awarded to female writers. That kind of sexism hasn't been seen on this world since the times of the patriarchy. If us men did the same we wouldn't hear the end of it. Bloody hypocrites.

Oh, one more thing to add while I'm at it: what many people don't realise is that the raison-d'etre of the patriarchy basically was keep men under control. Nowadays women apparently feel the need to fulfill that function, by emotionally harassing males and considering us to be "childish".

I think it's time for the fourth wave.

Maynard, I always enjoy your (2.00 / 6) (#8)
by terryfunk on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:23:23 PM EST

stuff. I will FP this when it leaves the queue.

I like you, I'll kill you last. - Killer Clown
The ScuttledMonkey: A Story Collection

Very nice article. Dr. J. is astonished that all (2.69 / 13) (#12)
by ElizabethBennett on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:51:05 PM EST

of you are not weeping and agonizing over what passes for contemporary fiction. Since, apparently, so many of you aren't, you must be victims of arrested development, trapped in adolescent rooms of your own. There can't be any other explanation. Good God. Can this woman actually be talking about men?

Perhaps, adult males don't read modern fiction for the same reason that lots of women no longer bother. It stinks. It isn't just men that are being failed by the current literary establishment. I read almost entirely non-fiction, and when I don't, I re-read such "life companions," as Dickens, Austen, Stevenson, Cather, and Tolkien.

I will vote FP.

excellent article..+1FP when in voting queue.. (none / 1) (#14)
by dakini on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:43:38 PM EST



" May your vision be clear, your heart strong, and may you always follow your dreams."
A consideration (2.95 / 23) (#19)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:19:16 PM EST

1) Jane Eyre (1847)
2) Wuthering Heights (1847)
3) The Handmaid's Tale (1985)
4) Middlemarch (1871)
5) Pride and Prejudice (1813)
Average publication year: 1872

1) The Outsider (1941)
2) Catcher in the Rye (1945)
3) Slaughterhouse Five (1969)
4) One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967)
5) The Hobbit (1937)
Average publication year: 1951

"What I find extraordinary is the hold the male cultural establishment has over book prizes like the Booker, for instance, and in deciding what is the best. This is completely at odds with their lack of interest in fiction."

It seems like the apex of women's literature has for the most part stagnated while men's is much more contemporary.

-Soc
I drank what?


things that occur to me: (2.64 / 14) (#20)
by livus on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:23:52 PM EST

I've read - and enjoyed - everything on both top 5 lists except The Hobbit (which I've read part of) and Middlemarch, and it seems to me that paradoxically the male list is much more emo than I'd have expected from the tone of this article, and the female list is more about the social.

Both lists however predominantly deal with the way in which the alienated individual fits with the society.

The Handmaid's Tale, for example, deals with violence, rape, and execution and is a lot more violent than the poignant Catcher in the Rye.

Was she asking two different questions of men and women or is this something that was added in here by you? Because a "watershed" book isn't the same thing as a "good" book or an "excellent" or even "important" book.  

Secondly, am I the only one who noticed that the male list is primarily twentieth century writers and the female list is almost all Victorian? The main difference I'd draw from this is that men and women are working with different "canons", that presumably they have different books pressed on them by their friends and relatives, than men do. And they may be working with different selection criteria. Come to think of it, in my own life, my mother owns Austen and Bronte, my father owns Camus and Vonnegut.
.

I have to say I started laughing at the conclusions you were drawing here. Jardine and her ilk (if an ilk she has) don't exactly hold the balance of power in the "Literary Establishment". If she's trying to "imply" - and I think she is actually trying to explicitly state - that the criteria on which the literary establishment chooses its Nobel prizewinners is wrong, doesn't that tell you something? She's a minority dissenting voice, not the major player you try to make her out to be.

Also, I don't see why you think a female reader would be any happier with Jardine than a male reader.

It's been well reported that women read more than men for a long time now (for whatever reason), but a glance at any list of winners for the prestige literary prizes will not show you a raft of "chick lit".

I'll probably +1 this but it does seem incompletely thought-through at the moment.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

Theres a back story here perhaps. (2.90 / 11) (#22)
by The Diary Section on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:28:36 PM EST

Women buy nearly all published fiction and increasingly provide most of the criticism; literature hasn't been male dominated as a business in many years.

It is be noted that not even feminists can agree on the Orange prize. I heard a fairly vicious cat fight on Radio 4 a couple of months back from a writer who stated, I think reasonably, that she thought her stuff could compete with anything so why did she need to be put in a "special needs" category? The moderator had to break things up in the end amidst raised voices. Arguably the results of this study stand to reinforce the need for the continuation of the Orange Prize and the kudos and free lunches that go with it for those involved. In a world where the best paid writer on the planet is a woman, there is presumably a need for a new way of defining "female literature".

I also think they knew before they started what the outcome would be, the observations are obviously nothing new. Quite a few well-known writers (e.g., Sir Kingsley Amis) have mulled over the fact  that their libraries consist almost exclusively of books by people of the same sex.

Finally, Lisa Jardine is a troublemaker ("high media profile" indeed) as anyone who listens to Radio 4 regularly will know. Half the time I suspect she says these things with a view to being invited back in future to debate them. Whilst she wouldn't call it as such, I think there might be an element of YHBT here but in itself that doesn't mean there is any problem with your article.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.

"The Hobbit" sucks. Like, really sucks. (1.60 / 5) (#62)
by Patrick Chalmers on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:33:05 PM EST

Also, this woman doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about. "Puberty reading", indeed. Dipshit.
Holy crap, working comment search!
Male Aloneness. (2.91 / 24) (#86)
by spooked on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:42:00 AM EST

Male Aloneness, which was first articulated to me in Samuel R. Delany's Trouble on Triton, is something that most women cannot understand or don't experience in modern culture or society. First, let me clarify what I mean by 'male aloneness.' It's not loneliness, as it's not the longing we experience but the way we live in society. Men are alone. Fundamentally alone, single, by themselves, removed. Women, as far as I can understand often act or make decisions socially. Not to say they have to consult their peers all the time, but it seems they overcome problems either socially, as a group or with group consensus, or verbally using language or communication with others as a solution. In my opinion, civilization would not be possible without this feminine trait. More to the point, I believe that society is the expression of this trait. Generally they act within, or as groups. Whereas acting outside of society, outside of consensus or without group support is a inherently masculine trait.

Keep in mind I'm talking in gross generalities but think about it: how many women do you know that aren't social versus the number of men that are? In grade school girl go the bathroom in groups, only the rejected, dehumanized girls that were bullied by everyone went alone. (I suspect that she wished that she had a friend or friends to accompany her, that the lack of social support antagonized her. Again, I'm sure there are women who grew up in such a situation and didn't mind being alone but they are few.) The boys went alone and enjoyed going alone, that having the gym washroom to yourself is a small joy and still is. Even the male counterpart to our rejected girl would probably wish for a protector rather than a confidant. How often to you men call up you friends on the phone simply to 'talk,' without any specific goal in mind?

Male aloneness is to be at ease being alone, it is a natural state. It's not uncomfortable or boring it allows us true freedom, a completeness. For a personal example, my roommate, if she's at home alone and come home, she instantly seeks my attention, even just to ask me how my day was, just to say hi. She'll hangout in my room just for the company, even if I'm completely ignoring her. Whereas when she walks in the door my mood shifts, from relaxed to attentive and I often hide in my room or just leave just so that I can maintain that 'aloneness.'

A women could never have written The Outsider or Catcher in the Rye. Mersault's actions must seem so alien to them, it's no wonder that they don't identify with it. But to myself, they're natural, understandable.

So what I don't understand is why we're talking about this femnazi's idiocy in the first place.

Seriously.
Fuck that (2.88 / 9) (#99)
by Spendocrat on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:35:57 AM EST

angst-ridden books showing intellectual struggle, violence, personal vulnerability, catastrophe and the struggle to rise above circumstance ...

If "The Handmaiden's Tale" isn't about intellectual struggle, personal vulnerability, catastrophe, and the struggle to rise above circumstance, I'll eat my hat. The only thing that's missing is *overt* violence.

Frankly (2.84 / 13) (#100)
by coillte on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:11:56 AM EST

as a male, I have very little interface with the results of the above studies. Which is just dandy.

Criticism one.  A liberal arts background (in English LIt and cultural studies) does not equip the researcher with the methodology and skills to implement and analyse a statistical study. I'd question, at the very least, her selection techniques. Bare minimum.

Criticism two. The photo manual jibe. It seems an entirely arbitrary comparison. I'd hazard the majority of men have never read one. It would be equally bizarre, arbitrary and biased if she were to say, of women, that they read novels like they read curling tong manuals. As an off the cuff remark it is perhaps revealing. Its certainly not an example of academic rigour. Its distinctly misandrist.

Re Jardines take on supposed male taste? Its difficult to accept the idea that Albert Camus, or Marquez have little literary worth. They are certainly no less valid as literary luminaries than Margaret Atwood.

That said, the field of Cultural Studies/Cultural History is littered with cantankerous cranks, misandrists, and incompetent loons. Its where the conspiracy theorists of lberal arts eke out a living.

_________________
"XVI The Blasted Tower. Here is purification through fire,lightning, flames, war...the eye is the eye of Shiva... the serpent on the right is the symbol of the active will to live,the dove on the left is passive resignation to death"

Literature and its place (2.77 / 9) (#101)
by destroy all monsters on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:11:57 AM EST

What I find interesting is what ends up being defined as literature and what doesn't - and why. I'd consider the Hobbit genre fiction (fantasy). I'd consider almost everything on the "women's" list genre fiction (gothic romance for the most part).

Far more eloquent folks have already stated how rating one above the other is poppycock. Yet, the only things I find of interest in fiction would tend to be in the science fiction/fantasy/noir and/or horror realms. Who gets to decide what serious fiction is? I'd certainly prefer to re-read the Diamond Age than anything on either list.

It is my belief that good fiction (like good acting) teaches us about ourselves and the human condition - anything past that is of no importance whatsoever.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice

-1. (1.06 / 16) (#109)
by J for Vendetta on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:42:24 AM EST

After carefully reading your article and considering its various pros and cons, I've decided it's not quite what I am looking for in a Kuro5hin article.

As such, I am forced to give this submission a -1. Better luck next time.


Natalie Portman: Are you going to vote -1 on more articles?
J: Yes.



+1 FP, Excellent! (1.60 / 5) (#116)
by Psychology Sucks on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:01:16 PM EST

I usually F-1CTION, but this article is superb.  Bravo.

¡VIVA PLUS UNO! (none / 1) (#118)
by Mylakovich on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:57:14 PM EST

Now that Josh Farien is dead, I shall redirect the aims of the revolution to suit a more populist goal.

congrats maynard! /nt (2.16 / 6) (#122)
by terryfunk on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 01:50:25 PM EST



I like you, I'll kill you last. - Killer Clown
The ScuttledMonkey: A Story Collection

reminds me of a classic (3.00 / 34) (#123)
by Lode Runner on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:15:46 PM EST

In-class assignment for Wednesday April 5, 2006: Tandem Story. Each person will pair off with the person sitting next to them. One of you will then write the first paragraph of a short story. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on until both people agree a conclusion has been reached. The story must be coherent, and each paragraph relevant to the prior one.

. . . and here's what one pair turned in!

Rebecca <surname> and Gary <surname>
English 144A
Creative Writing
Prof. <name>

At first, Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The camomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who had once said in happier times, that he liked camomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So camomile was out of the question.

Meanwhile, Advance Team Captain Carl Harris was leading his patrol squadron into orbit over Skylon 4. Carl had more important things to think about than the neuroses of that air-headed asthmatic woman named Laurie who, after one sweaty night over three months ago, was still desperately clinging to an illusion of a relationship she had fabricated in her unbalanced mind. "Alpha Tango One to Geostation One-Niner-Three", he said into his subspace communicator. "Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance..." But before he could sign off a bluish plasma beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit threw him out of his seat and into the cockpit control panel.

He hit his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel", Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth -- when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspapers to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. "Why must one lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.

Little did she know, but she has less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian battleship launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted, bleeding-heart peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through the U.N. had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empire who was determined to enslave the human race. Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet and nothing to stop them. They swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in a submarine off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion which vaporized Laurie and 15 million other Americans. He slammed his fist on the conference table. "I KNEW this would happen! I am exercising my executive privledge to annul that treaty effective IMMEADIATELY! Ready the nukes, we're gonna blow those bastards out of the sky!"

This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic, semi-literate adolescent.

Yeah? Well, you're a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium.

Asshole.

Bitch.

Other comments (2.75 / 4) (#125)
by The Diary Section on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:15:17 PM EST

pretty similar to our own thus far really, here.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
I always kind of thought women's literature (2.50 / 6) (#133)
by thankyougustad on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:21:22 PM EST

was a bit of an oxymoron. They really don't write about anything of any interest to anyone.

I consider this statement to carry as much weight as the statement's made by this professor, who probably has an MFA, which is like going to culinary school.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

Could we please go back to calling it The Stranger (2.77 / 9) (#151)
by thankyougustad on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:27:44 PM EST

For a second I thought there was some Camus I'd never heard of.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

so what's wrong with me? (2.33 / 3) (#156)
by wampswillion on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:33:41 PM EST

i pretty much love salinger, camus, and marquez.

Hell is Jane Austen (2.75 / 16) (#169)
by IHCOYC on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:21:29 AM EST

Really: I can't imagine a worse afterlife than to be compelled to hobnob with the women who populate Jane Austen's novels. A world of dramatic events involving scientific discovery and Napoleonic war surrounded them, and its influence never penetrates their social milieu. Instead, their sole concern is with marrying money, while remaining within the boundaries of an elaborate, frivolous, and treacherous etiquette.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit G
Why aren't men (3.00 / 5) (#173)
by Grayworld on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:08:31 AM EST

reading contemporary literary fiction? I think they just find more satisfaction in actually doing and accomplishing things, whether they be trivial or great, than they are reading fiction.

I also think men, much more than women, prefer to read things that they believe can help them in achieving some professional or personal goal. They believe biographical, historical and technical stuff help guide them through the more difficult or significant crossroads in their lives much more than fiction. They prefer to draw lessons from reality rather than from what they consider essentially fantasy.

Finally, I think part of the answer lies in simple time management. Our lives are becoming ever more complicated. We need to know more about everything to stay even professionally and personally and culturally. We have more choices to explore more subjects all over the world now with the internet. There is simply less time to devote to fiction. There is too much reality to deal with.


Fair but a bit unbalanced to be sure!

What is good literature anyway? (2.83 / 6) (#174)
by Roman on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:20:25 AM EST

I read Jane Eyre when I was 12 and I didn't like it.  I read The Handmaid's Tale when I was 22 and I did like it.  I never read Hobbit, but I read LOTR in 3 different languages at different times.  I read Orwell when I was 15, and then later at 25, I liked it both times but for somewhat different reasons (at 15 I was still back in the USSR, or what was left of it in 91, at 25 I was in Canada.)

However I always preferred reading Sci Fi, Spy stuff, the Crime and Detective stuff, Adventure, and some fantasy to all other genres.  

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra's Don Quixote de la Mancha

Stanislaw Lem's Solaris, The Invincible, Capitan Ijon Tichi (Star Diaries,) Eden, Moloch.  

Asimov's I Robot series, the Caves of Steel series and the Foundation series.  

Duma's The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, Ten Years Later, The Black Tulip, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Man in the Iron Mask, The Vicomte de Bragelonne.  

Robert Louis Stevenson the Treasure Island.

Jewel Vernes,

H. G. Wells,

Mark Twain,

Jack London,

Maine Reed's The Headless Rider,

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his Sherlock Holmes series,

Agatha Christie with her Miss Marple, her Hercule,

Alexander Beliaev and his Professor Dowell's Head, Amphibian Man, Ariel, The Star Kets

Alexei Tolstoy and his Aelita

Tolkien and LOTR

and there are so many more...

If all of these writers are not good enough for Professor Lisa Jardine, that's fine, I'll take them and read them and reread them and then read them some more, and noone can ever convince me that they are not good literature.

What is wrong with photography manuals? (2.50 / 4) (#183)
by bacterio on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:31:34 PM EST

I was going through my Amazon wishlist and none of the books are fiction (except Clide Fans, but this is a comic). I do not see clearly why reading fiction is a good thing, as opposed to say, reading a manual on networks or a history book.

Her list of Top 5 Female Novels is B.S. (2.71 / 7) (#193)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 08:00:26 AM EST

Those are the top 5 female-read novels for a VERY select group of women. Ask any of the women on my little suburban street, chock-full of Liberal Arts University-educated Soccer-moms, and what will you find as the top 5: 4 novels in the Chick-lit genre and a book about weight loss/no-traditional spiritual enlightenment.

This article is good, but the article it references is total crap.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

We can skip all the harsh noise (2.33 / 3) (#194)
by tert on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 08:23:06 AM EST

and go directly to the core of the matter. There are no women giving out awards for fiction because most women have abhorrent tastes in fiction. No need to dance around it, the genders are different.

On great literature... (1.75 / 4) (#196)
by Fon2d2 on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 12:47:18 PM EST

I would guess that most people don't read or read very little. This is a statement of the times more than it is a statement about people. More direct forms of entertainment, such as television and movies, are available now and are generally preferred. I, however, find that the written word is capable of a far greater dymanic range and subtlety of expression, and is therefore, ironically, a more direct form of self-expression. Literature, is therefore capable of many things that are either difficult or impossible in movies.

This distinction is mostly unappreciated however by our society. Consequently, there has been a noticeable decline in vocabulary and writing style since the Victorian era. To me, this is painfully obvious when placing classical literature such as Dickens or a well translated Cervantes side by side with 20th century authors such as Dan Brown or Kurt Vonnegut. Not that I would place either Brown or Vonnegut in the same distinction of literature as Dickens or Cervantes however, but they are the books of today. Brown and Vonnegut both seem to entertain for entertainment's sake. Vonnegut seems to have more depth but I find this depth to be somewhat illusory, something akin to a parlor trick.

Some people here have commented on the difference in eras preferred by men and women. I find this interesting as I would place mostly the older, classical works in the area of literature. The wider vocabulary and more erudite writing style gives these authors a higher command over language which results in a more expressive and more direct style. Mastery of the language is not enough however, to be a true work of art in my opinion. Poignant observations on life and the nature of humanity are also necessary. These are not told just in the way the characters interact and develop. It is in the subtext of the entire novel. It is an awareness of the characters' abilities, limitations, strengths, weaknesses, naivities, misconceptions and so forth on the part of the author that is slowly transmitted to the reader through the course of the novel. In this way, the reader gains real wisdom in addition to a compelling story.

Most books do not really manage to meet these criteria. The outstanding example from the list of books I have read is David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. I have noticed that many contemporary books have endorsements on their jackets implying that the author has in some manner matched or bested Dickens. These are categorically untrue. Do not believe them for an instant.

The most interesting modern author in my opinion is J.K. Rowling. I have noticed an awareness of her characters that speaks of a deeper understanding on her part. This is also blended with a fairly compelling story telling style to provide both entertainment and insight. This, in part, explains her massive popularity. But the Harry Potter series falls flat a lot more easily as well. This may be in part due to the plain language in which the novels are written. Such language may limit the subtlety and expressiveness that makes some novels truly delightful. The novels also show a lack of creativity in some other aspects that can make some aspects of the story something more akin to a prop. Where these aspects become weaved into the plot, the story as a whole necessarily loses. This seems not to be a minor problem for the Potter series.

Of the books on the list preferred by women, I have not read Pride and Prejudice, but I am currently reading Sense and Sensibility and I am expecting to gain something from it. I am only far enough in to establish the main characters and a couple of the romantic interests, so it will be interesting to see how Jane Austen develops them. The introduction, however, gave the impression that the book is a somewhat failed social statement. Not failed because it does not resonante with the outer world, but failed because Austen ultimately failed to get where she'd intended and ended up forcing some elements of the story in the end. It's a bit of a downer for an introduction, which begs the question why the publisher would include it. I suppose because the book is a classic and the introduction is included more for educational purposes than as a selling point, because at the point where you are reading the introduction, whatever it says is probably not a selling point for you anyway.

(Now to BS a point to my post...) In the end, I think it's funny to make a distinction the way Jardine does. Most people don't care about more expressive or subtle forms of art anyway. Books and television are the same in a lot of ways in that both provide basal entertainment; Books simply have more potential. Trying to influence the opinion of the public or draw inferences based on those opinions seems an exercise in pointlessness as applied to (what most would consider) such an esoteric aspect of life. Worse, she seems to be inexorably caught up in the results of her research, making value judgements based off it or using it to affirm value judgements she has already made. She is most likely tangled in a web of conceptions and subjectivity (necessary for such research) the extent of which even she is not aware. In short, though Jardine's conclusions may be interesting and provide points for further thought, they should not be taken to heart.

Top 5 fiction books for real men (2.25 / 4) (#200)
by nlscb on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 05:09:32 PM EST

1) The Hunt for Red October

2) Jurassic Park

3) Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

4) Neuromancer

5) Return of the Dark Knight

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

Ursula K. Le Guin (2.75 / 4) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 05:49:17 PM EST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_K._Le_Guin

i always dug her

and not all that earthsea crap, i'm talking about stuff like her short stories

like that planet where all of the plants roots link together to form one giant brain, and drive the people who go there mad

or that perfect utopian society: no poverty no crime... except for that one teenager chained in his own filth that everyone is required to visit

i forget the names of these short stories, but they always left a deep impression on me, and her writing themes/ style always seemed distinctly feminine to me. in other words, the violence was always subvert, not overt

which is true about females in general: they are actually usually more violent than men, but in social ways, rather than physical ways

if you compare violence among grade school girls versus grade school boys, at first glance, boys seem much more violent: it's all fisticuffs. but if you include social violence: purposely damamging someone else's feelings with words to their face and rumors behind their backs, than the girls are off the charts compared to the boys

men will solve conflict by bashing each other in the face, which can of course be permanently disfiguring and threaten death. but mens' violence is shallow: the next day they are friends

women on the other hand will solve conflict by constructing lies about each other, and ruin the reputation and cast doubt on their integrity. therefore, women's violence is rich deep complex and very involved. it's all about long-term sabotage, and can be quite evil

men can kill each other, sure, and that's pretty evil in itself, but its shallow and quickly flares up and disappears. but women go about low grade social guerrilla warfare, destroying each other psychologically and socially


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

This article is obviously a joke! (1.75 / 4) (#224)
by petrochemical on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:31:09 AM EST

"The researchers also found that women preferred old, well-thumbed paperbacks, whereas men had a slight fixation with the stiff covers of hardback books."

The homo-erotic implications are mind-boggling ... This article has certainly succeeded in its purpose, which was to wind people up!



Do you have any qualifications? (1.42 / 7) (#239)
by sllort on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:25:49 PM EST

I noticed you didn't list any, but you're criticizing two University professors. It doesn't appear that you're qualified to make an argument.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
stereotype-conform self-descriptions (2.00 / 3) (#240)
by mhermans on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:31:12 PM EST

Forgoing the literary discussion, and offering a quick note from the (undergraduate) perspective of social psychology: one should keep in mind that (verbal) descriptions of behaviour -- including our own behaviour -- are deeply (and unconciously) influenced by pervailing stereotypes if we lack clear information/comparison points.

An example is the self-description of experienced emotions [Robinson et. al., 1998 (linky)], and I wouldn't be suprised if there is an equal significant impact when nominating your "milestone book". Can't really imagine David Cameron picking some 'chick-lit' as "as his watershed book"...



Watershed fiction (2.50 / 2) (#243)
by livus on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:32:09 AM EST

"Help us find the top 10 novels that have changed the way we see women by nminating your choice."

BBC Radio talks to Lisa Jardine.

Now I understand. It's a comparison between apples and oranges.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

So, basically, her point is... (2.40 / 5) (#249)
by illissius on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:33:06 PM EST

Men and women have different taste, therefore, men are inferior.

"changed their lives" is the key word (none / 1) (#261)
by ethereal on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 03:59:09 PM EST

I don't understand why a literary male could not also say that those books changed their lives.  Perhaps they read the book, and then decided it was terrible and they wanted to get into real literature instead?  This seems to just be bad survey design.

Me, I dislike Bronte or Salinger both equally, although for different reasons.  Discussions of what literature is more acceptable are just argumentation fodder for academics, similar to "what's your father do?" in kindergarten.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

So... (none / 0) (#264)
by Niha on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:39:07 PM EST

 They asked 500 or 400 men about their tastes in reading. What does it have to do with what men and women like to read?

Prof. Lisa Jardine: 'Men Prefer Fiction About Alienation And Violence.' So What? | 277 comments (243 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!