Culture » August 16, 2006

Why Hemingway Is Chick-Lit

Women read more fiction than men.

By Lakshmi Chaudhry

“When women stop reading, the novel will be dead,” declared Ian McEwan in the Guardian last year. The British novelist reached this rather dire conclusion after venturing into a nearby park in an attempt to give away free novels. The result?

Only one “sensitive male soul” took up his offer, while every woman he approached was “eager and grateful” to do the same.

Unscientific as McEwan’s experiment may be, its thesis is borne out by a number of surveys conducted in Britain, the United States and Canada, where men account for a paltry 20 percent of the market for fiction. Unlike the gods of the literary establishment who remain predominantly male—both as writers and critics—their humble readers are overwhelmingly female.

In recent years, various pundits have used this so-called “fiction gap” as an opportunity to trot out their pet theories on what makes men and women tick. The most recent is New York Times columnist David Brooks, who jumped at the chance to peddle his special brand of gender essentialism. His June 11 column arbitrarily divided all books into neat boy/girl categories—”In the men’s sections of the bookstore, there are books describing masterly men conquering evil. In the women’s sections there are novels about … well, I guess feelings and stuff.” His sweeping assertion flies in the face of publishing industry research, which shows that if “chick-lit” were defined as what women read, the term would have to include most novels, including those considered macho territory. A 2000 survey found that women comprised a greater percentage of readers than men across all genres: Espionage/thriller (69 percent); General (88 percent); Mystery/Detective (86 percent); and even Science Fiction (52 percent).

Brooks’ real agenda, however, is not to deride women’s fiction, but to promote the latest conservative talking point: blaming politically correct liberals for a “feminized” school curriculum that turns young boys “into high school and college dropouts who hate reading.” According to Brooks, we have burdened little boys with “new-wave” novels about “introspectively morose young women,” when they would be better served by suitably masculine writers like Ernest Hemingway. “It could be, in short, that biological factors influence reading tastes, even after accounting for culture,” Brooks claims. “The problem is that even after the recent flurry of attention about why boys are falling behind, there is still intense social pressure not to talk about biological differences between boys and girls (ask Larry Summers).”

It takes a bizarre leap of logic to connect current school curricula to the reading habits of adult men. Moreover, there is no indication that men “hate reading”—women just read more fiction. Men out-read women by at least ten percentage points when it comes to nonfiction books—surely good news for the bestselling author of Bobos in Paradise.

To be fair, conservatives like Brooks are not the only talking-heads to resort to biological determinism in explaining the “fiction gap.” Psychologist Dorothy Rowe told the Observer that women like fiction because they have richer and more complex imaginations. “Women have always had to try to understand what other people are doing because women have always had to negotiate their way through the family,” she said. “They have always had to get their power by having a pretty good idea of what’s going on inside other people and using that knowledge to get them to do things.” Quite apart from the unintended implication that feminism is likely to fulfill McEwan’s worst fears—i.e., kill the novel—such arguments reproduce the worst kind of gender stereotypes: Women as sensitive, emotionally intelligent creatures; men as unreflective dolts.

Cognitive literary critic Lisa Zunshine, whose multidisciplinary field integrates the insights offered by cognitive science to better understand fiction, offers a more modest and nuanced hypothesis. Her book, Why We Read Fiction, argues that fiction as a literary form offers us pleasure because it engages our ability to mind-read, “a term used by cognitive psychologists, interchangeably with ‘Theory of Mind,’ to describe our ability to explain people’s behavior in terms of their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and desires.” Fiction, therefore, “lets us try on different mental states.”

Women are more likely than men to enjoy reading fiction, period (as opposed to just reading about “feelings and stuff”), because “they generally want more input for their Theory-of-Mind adaptations,” says Zunshine. “They want to experience other ‘minds in action’—which is another way of defining ‘empathy’—much more than men do.”

Zunshine underscores the fact that such cognitive research is based on “average statistical scores,” and offers no guidance as to what individual men or women may read. Moreover, the biological difference between male and female Theory-of-Mind is small, and likely only accounts for a “somewhat greater” predilection for fiction among women.

But in a culture infused with polarizing messages about gender, such small differences can be magnified into vast disparities. If the act of reading novels today seems more “girly”—because of female-dominated book clubs or a publishing industry increasingly geared toward its most loyal customers, i.e., women—then men are less likely to do so. That’s partly why Jonathan Franzen worried about being endorsed by Oprah. Franzen told NPR, “I had some hope of actually reaching a male audience [for The Corrections] and I’ve heard more than one [male] reader in signing lines now at bookstores say ‘If I hadn’t heard you, I would have been put off by the fact that it is an Oprah pick. I figure those books are for women. I would never touch it.’ “

Desperate efforts to “macho” up the novel include Penguin’s “Good Booking” campaign, which sent out—who else?—beautiful models to award prizes of £1,000 each month to any British man under 25 caught in flagrante with one of its testosterone-friendly titles. The advertising tag line? “What women really want is a man with a Penguin.”

Apart from sex with beautiful models, men are also socialized to seek out activities that confer status—which, these days, sadly doesn’t include reading novels. According to novelist Walter Kirn, “If novelists have become culturally invisible—at least to today’s men—it’s partly because the life of a novelist offers few rewards to the traditional male ego. It’s not about power, glory and money,” unlike the adulation our culture reserves for rap stars, athletes and movie actors.

Don’t look now, but we may be headed back to the 19th century, when the novel was considered a low-status, frivolous, pastime of ladies of leisure, unfit for real men. As Margaret Atwood pointed out in a 1998 speech, “To trace the trajectory of the novel is to follow the struggle of the novelist—even, perhaps especially, the male novelist—to be taken seriously—that is, to raise the perception of his chosen form from that of a piece of silly frou-frou to the higher, more male realm of capital-A Art.” This project kicked into high gear in the 20th century—so much so that by 1935 Ernest Hemingway could blithely declare, “All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn.”—and reached its peak during the chest-thumping Beat movement.

But were men more likely to read novels when Jack Kerouac ruled the literary world? The answer is unclear, primarily because industry research in this area has been erratic until recent decades. So, it’s hard to establish a definitive link between the size of male readership and the status accorded fiction in society—at least over the past 100 years. Nor do we know if these trends hold true in other, non-English speaking cultures.

What is clear is that the novel seems to be reverting to its origins as a feminine hobby, and hence is in danger of being toppled off its high artistic perch. Explaining his newspaper’s decision to radically cut down on fiction reviews, New York Times editor Bill Keller told a Poynter columnist, “The most compelling ideas tend to be in the non-fiction world.” Others, like Toronto Star book columnist Phillip Marchand, are happy to quote their 19th century forbears like poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge—”Where the reading of novels prevails as a habit, it occasions in time the entire destruction of the powers of the mind.”—to conclude, “And if non-fiction can provide examples of fresh and precise use of language, and enlargement of our powers of sympathy and imagination, there’s no reason to insist, in the case of male readers, that it make way for fiction.”

It’s a good thing, then, that the great male novelists can still rely on us girls to finance their literary careers.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Hemingway would be pleased.  Although he was incredibly chauvinistic,he wrote for women.  Bill Keller is wrong, in my opinion, non-fiction is useful and sometimes informative, but real ideas, and inspiration leap from good works of fiction.  Fiction enlivens the mind and the spirit.  Most non-fiction puts them to sleep.

  One wonders if President Bush’s reading of Camus’ novel, “The Stranger”, will inspire useful change.  Perhaps, but alas he is not a woman.

  Posted by rvrman on Aug 16, 2006 at 7:38 PM

  The novel, for men, is dying because of internet porn.  The novel is dying in general because of television.  It’s time to give up, as a serious writer, when you see that the DaVinci Code and Harry Potter will dominate the lowbrow literary commentary regarding the work of this decade.  And that crappy book about the kid who found his father’s key after nine eleven is considered high art by the high artists.  Sexism in literature, and the evils afforded, pale in comparison with these terrible truths.

  Amen.

  Posted by kibitzer on Aug 16, 2006 at 8:41 PM

  As a teacher of literature, I am forced to tach contemporary novels, and go home to read Dickens, Trollope, Burroughs or anyone who keeps clear of empathy with another mind. Lot of this stuff, like Regency Novels at the beginning of the form, is just plain crap to feed emotional vampirism. A single sentence from a novel recommended on Oprah makes me choke. There is a real world out there, and the sooner writers return to it, the better.

  Here is my belief. It’s not that women read more novels; it is that a certain type of woman established its favourite genre, the Harlequin Romance, as our dominant mode. And for the record, kerouac never ruled the literry world, and died making $10,000 dollars a year. How quickly good male writers are forgotten for the trash ramed down students’ throats

  Posted by gooddoctor on Aug 17, 2006 at 3:51 PM

  Hmmm, interesting comments, “gooddoctor”,but a good read to me is a book that ignites something, brain, heart, soul, etc.  Rarely do mediocre works ignite much of anything.  Yes, Kerouac was boring because he could not see beyond the cult.  Hemingway is never boring because you are always a party to the plot. Dickens captures all of you including ones indignation. Mark Twain, liberates one’s humanity and Kurt Vonnegut twists our minds and consciences.

  Posted by rvrman on Aug 17, 2006 at 4:21 PM

  I tend to think the problem is the media, the industry. As a struggeling writer - and this may sound a bit arrogant - I do not understand why it’s so hard for a “writer” to get published. I know there’s a lot of krapp out there that lands on publishers desks. I also know that a lot of that krapp a lot of people would read. As an aspiring writer with four unpublished - and, of course, badly written - novels, the greatest challenge I face is not finding readers but getting publishers to talk with me. On top of that so-called lit-agents have become deciders of destiny (for writers). I also believe there is too little originality and depth in what’s being published today. Just read Da Vinci Snot or any other high-selling thriller. Almost all of it has no literary value and practically competes with the TV format.
  Whoopee.
  In case anyone is interested here’s some bad writing for free:
  http://worstwriter.wordpress.com/tag/frictions/chad-the-novel/

  -tgs-

  Posted by Tommi on Aug 17, 2006 at 4:53 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 58 posts.

Also featured Do You Have a Minute for ?
Bird-Dogging Hillary Clinton
Examining Irans ties to Hezbollah

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Lakshmi Chaudhry

• The Godless Fundamentalist
  In The Root of All Evil, biologist Richard Dawkins reveals his own lust for certainty Posted on December 8, 2006
• The Power of Mean
  Fuller argues that the moral power of Rankism = that everyone experiences being a somebody and a nobody - can overcome the innate force of bullying?Posted on November 29, 2006
• Why Pakistan Gets A Nuclear Pass
  The Bush administration's pragmatic policy toward Pakistan suggests its foreign policy is less ideological than imperialPosted on September 22, 2006
• The True Temptations of the West
  Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond is a travelogue by Pankaj Mishra about the shadow of poverty in South Asia.Posted on August 24, 2006
• What Not to Watch
  Makeover shows like "What Not to Wear" teach women to listen to their inner demonsMakeover shows like "What Not to Wear" teach women to listen to their inner demonsPosted on July 6, 2006