Laurie King speaks out

The veteran author of the Kate Martinelli and Mary Russell series is the latest to set up shop in the lit 'sphere, and she gets the ball rolling very nicely with an illuminating post that answers one of my concerns from earlier in the week: when it came to the Best First Novel nominees, where were the girls? King's in an excellent position to answer because she chaired the committee:

[A] year ago when I was putting together the committee, [I] took care to balance it: two men, two women (plus me); thrillers and cozies; Left Coast and Other. And when the ballot came down to it, that's what we said, too: Where are the girls?

The women [Sarah]  singles out did indeed write appealing books, just not quite as appealing--TO THE FIVE OF US, let it be said--as the books that ended up on the list. And although I admit that affirmative action might work in academia, we couldn't really feel justified in giving extra points to the women just because they were women. So we gulped, and voted, and that's the list we came up with.

She then addresses the broader question of "where are the girls" as a whole, and invites readers to respond. Looks like King's got the blogging knack already.

Comments

[Eric Christopherson]

Here's an alternate theory of explanation (not that I disagree with King's theory about women being torn in more directions): men are, across the board, bigger risk takers (and to such an extent that I'm not going to bother building a case for my contention), and perhaps in this category risk taking is exceptionally rewarded?

[Elizabeth West]

First of all, here's a great first novel: Joan London's "Gilgamesh".
And as for men being bigger risk takers, it seems to me that they have to be because they generally don't ask for directions.

[Cara]

A few years back when I was on the Edgars First Novel cmte we had lots of female contenders...only two guys made the final cut. So, who knows? But Laurie's point is well taken
Happy Birthday Sarah...make that wish and blow every single candle out!